Skip to main content

Full text of "Louis Patrick Gray III : Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session, on nomination of Louis Patrick Gray III, of Connecticut, to be Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation"

See other formats


'u^.  aw/^-^'T?/^ 


LOUIS  PATRICK  GRAY  III 


^3^^— 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 

ON 

NOMINATION  OF  LOUIS  PATRICK  GRAY  III,  OF  CONNECTICUT, 
TO  BE  DIRECTOR,  FEDERAL  BUREAU  OF  INVESTIGATION 


FEBRUARY  28;  MARCH  1,  6,  7,  8,  9,  12,  20,  21,  AND  22,  1973 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 


U.  S.  Government  Documents  Depositor)' 
Franklin  Pierce  Law  Ceiiter  Library 
D35SB      gift 


Boste'^  '^'^^"^^  ybrary 
Boston,  yw„M  y2116 


LOUIS  PATRICK  GRAY  III 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

NINETY-THIED  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 

ON 

NOMINATION  OF  LOUIS  PATRICK  GRAY  III,  OF  CONNECTICUT, 
TO  BE  DIRECTOR,  FEDERAL  BUREAU  OF  INVESTIGATION 


FEBRUARY  28,  MARCH  1,  6,  7,  8,  9,  12,  20,  21,  and  22,  1973 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 


U.S.  GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

91-331  WASHINGTON   :   1973 

For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents, 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  U.G.  20402 

Price  $3.45  Domestic  postpaid  or  $3.00  GPO  Bookstore 

Stock  Number  5270-01304 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY 

JAMES  O.  EASTLAND,  Mississippi,  Chairman 

JOHN  L.  McCLELLAN,  Arkansas  ROMAN  L.  HRIiSKA,  Nebraska 

SAM  J.  ERVIN,  Jr.,  North  Carolina  HIRAM  L.  FONG,  Hawaii 

PHILIP  A.  HART,  Michigan  HUGH  SCOTT,  Pennsylvania 

EDWARD  M.  KENNEDY,  Massachusetts  STROM  THURMOND,  South  Carolina 

BIRCH  BAYH,  Indiana  MARLOW  W.  COOK,  Kentucky 

QUENTIN  N.  BURDICK,  North  Dakota  CHARLES  McC.  MATHIAS,  Jr.,  Maryland 

ROBERT  C.BYRD,  West  Virginia  EDWARD  J.  GURNEY,  Florida 
JOHN  V.  TUNNEY,  CaUfornia 

(II) 


CONTENTS 


Wednesday,  February  28,  1973 

Page 

Abraham  Ribicoff,  U.S.  Senator  from  Connecticut 1 

Lowell  P.  Weicker,  Jr.,  U.S.  Senator  from  Connecticut 2 

Louis  Patrick  Gra}^  III,  nominee  to  be  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  In- 
vestigation    4 

David  D.  Kinley,  executive  assistant  to  the  Acting  Director  of  the  Federal 

Bureau  of  Investigation 76 

Thursday,  March  1,  1973 
Louis  Patrick  Graj'  III 147 

Tuesday,  March  6,  1973 
Louis  Patrick  Gray  III 2SG 

Wednesday,  March  7,  1973 
Louis  Patrick  Gray  III 305 

Thursday,  March  8,  1973 
Louis  Patrick  Gray  III 37.") 

Friday,  March  9,  1973 

Edward  I.  Koch,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  New  York 435 

Joseph  L.  Rauh,  Jr.,  Americans  for  Democratic  Action,  accompanied  b}' 

Theodore  H.  Bornstein 444 

Norman  Dorsen,  chairman.  Committee  for  Public  Justice,  accompanied  by 
Leon  Friedman,  executive  director.  Committee  for  Public  Justice,  and 

Stephen  Gillers 462 

Jack  Anderson,  newspaper  columnist 476 

Leslie  H.  Whitten,  Jr.,  assistant  to  Jack  Anderson 481 

Hank  Adams,  national  director.  Survival  of  American  Indians  Association.  515 

Edward  Scheldt,  Reston,  Va 538 

Monday,  March  12,  1973 

Stephen  I.  Schlossberg,  general  counsel,  United  Automobile  Workers 541 

Edward  Scheldt,  Reston,  Va 554 

Tuesday,  March  20,  1973 

Louis  Patrick  Grav  III 575 

David  D.  Kinley_l 591 

Wednesday,  March  21,  1973 
Louis  Patrick  Gray  III 607 

Thursday,  March  22,  1973 
Louis  Patrick  Gray  III 661 

(m) 


NOMINATION  OF  LOUIS  PATRICK  GRAY  III 


WEDNESDAY,   FEBKUARY  28,    1973 

U.S.  Senate, 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  D.C. 

The  committee  met,  pursuant  to  notice,  at  10:45  a.m.,  in  room  1202, 
Dirksen  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  James  O.  Eastland  (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present:  Senators  Eastland,  McClelhan,  Er^'in,  Hart,  Kenned}^, 
Bayh,  Byrd  of  West  Virginia,  Tunney,  Hruska,  Fong,  Scott,  Thur- 
mond, Cook  and  Gurney. 

Also  present:  John  H.  Holloman,  chief  counsel,  and  Francis  C. 
Rosenberger,  Peter  Stcckett,  and  Thomas  D.  Hart,  prolessional 
staff  members. 

The  Chairman.  These  hearings  are  on  the  nomination  of  L. 
Patrick  Gray  III,  to  be  Director  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation. 

Senator  Ribicoff. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  ABKAHAM  RIBICOFF,  A  U.S.  SENATOR  FROM 

CONNECTICUT 

Senator  Ribicoff.  Air.  Chairman,  we,  in  Connecticut,  are  proud 
of  Pat  Gray,  and  so  am  I.  ¥ve,  in  Connecticut,  respect  Pat  Graj',  and 
so  do  I. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  kno^vn  Pat  Gray  for  many  years.  I  have 
always  found  him  to  be  a  man  of  outstanding  abihty,  character,  and 
integrity.  Every  job  that  Pat  Gray  has  performed  he  has  performed 
Axdth  excellence.  There  is  no  question  in  my  mmd  that  Pat  Gra}'-  is  a 
dedicated  public  servent  who  vnW  perform  any  task  assigned  to  him 
in  a  nonpartisan  manner.  I  respect  the  FBI,  and  the  entire  Nation 
respects  the  FBI.  The  FBI  is  one  of  the  great  law  enforcement  institu- 
tions in  America.  All  of  us  know  that  when  youngsters  come  to  visit 
Washington,  one  of  the  first  places  they  want  to  see  is  the  FBI. 

There  is  no  question  in  my  mind  that  as  Director  of  the  FBI,  Mr 
Gra}''  will  perform  his  tasks  on  a  completely  nonpartisan  basis.  In  all 
the  years  I  have  kno^\Tl  Pat  Gray  he  has  never  questioned  the  civil 
rights  of  individuals  and  the  protection  of  constitutional  guarantees. 
M}^  feeling  is  that  only  the  criminal  has  much  to  fear  from  Patrick 
Gray,  and  that  the  law-abiding  citizen  has  nothing  to  fear  from  Pat 
Gray.  He  Vv'ill  be  a  defender  of  om*  rights,  a  defender  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and  law  enforcement  in  this  Nation  \y\\\  be  stronger  Avith  Pat 
Gvory  as  Director  of  the  FBI.  He  has  my  unqualified  support. 

(1) 


2 

I  am  proud  that  Pat  Gray  is  a  citizen  of  Connecticut,  and  I  am  most 
jileased  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  seen  fit  to  appoint 
Pat  Gray  Director  of  the  FBI. 

The  Chairman.  Any  questions? 

Senator  Weicker. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  LOWELL  P.  WEICKER,  JE.,  A  U.S.  SENATOR 

FROM  CONNECTICUT 

Senator  Weicker.  Thank  you  very  much,  ^Nfr.  Chairman.  I  cer- 
tainly associate  myself  with  all  that  Senator  Ribicoff  has  said.  In 
addition  I  have  a  few  other  comments. 

Pat  Gray  comes  to  your  committee  as  a  man  of  very  broad  experi- 
ence, fortunately  not  just  in  the  law  but  as  a  man  who  has  served 
in  the  service  as  a  Navy  man,  and  as  a  man  who  went  to  law  school, 
as  a  man  who  served  as  a  lawyer,  as  a  man  who  served  in  HEW,  as  a 
man  who  served  in  the  Attorney  General's  office.  In  other  words, 
one  ^vdlose  life  has  touched  upon  many  aspects  of  the  American 
experience,  and  I  think  that  is  a  good  thing  for  one  who  is  going  to 
lead  the  FBI.  He  has  not  been  in  one  narrow^  area  of  activity. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  comment  upon  an  innuendo 
that  has  been  made  about  this  man  of  which  I  have  firsthand  knowl- 
edge. There  appeared  in  Time  magazine  a  column  devoted  to  Pat 
Gray  and  in  that  column  the  following  paragi^aph  appears : 

Much  of  the  Senate  opposition  to  Gray  is  rooted  in  his  lack  of  law  enforcement 
experience.  Gray,  who  became  a  lawyer  while  on  active  duty  with  the  Navy 
in  1949,  retired  after  20  3'ears  military  service  in  1960.  He  was  nominated  for  a 
federal  judgeship  but  because  of  his  meager  qualifications  the  nomination  was 
withdrawn  before  the  American  Bar  Association  could  officially  act  upon  it. 

And  in  the  same  paragraph,  I  don't  really  know  what  this  has  to 
do  with  the  lead  sentence : 

He  and  Nixon  had  met  at  a  Washington  cocktail  party  in  1947  and  the  two  have 
been  on  friendly  terms  ever  since. 

I  would  like  to  du-ect  my  comments  to  the  innuendo  that  is  con- 
tained in  that  paragraph  of  lack  of  legal  qualifications.  On  November 
23,  1971,  1  wrote  to  the  then  Attorney  General,  John  Mitchell, 
recommending  Pat  Gray  to  a  vacancy  on  the  second  circuit  court  of 
appeals,  and  I  will  make  that  letter  available  to  your  committee. 
In  January  1972,  the  Deputy  Attorney  General,  Mr.  Kleindienst, 
wrote  a  letter  to  the  standing  committee  on  the  federal  judiciary 
of  the  American  Bar  Association  requesting  that  an  informal  report 
on  Pat  Gray  be  compiled. 

Now,  prior  to  that  report  being  compiled  Pat's  name  was  with- 
drawn as,  in  fact,  he  was  being  nominated  for  the  Office  of  Deputy 
Attorney  General. 

Now,  No.  1 :  Your  committee  knows  full  well  that  Pat  Gray  was 
never  nominated  for  anything.  Now  let's  get  to  the  business  of  the 
American  Bar  Association.  Mr.  Albert  Connolly  of  Cravath,  Swaine, 
&  Moore,  New  York,  was  designated  by  the  ABA  to  investigate 
Mr.  Gray's  qualifications.  He  stated,  in  reading  over  the  personal 
data  questionnaire  between  February  1  and  February  9,  that  he 
decided  ]\tr.  Gray  had  more  backgiound  in  Washington  and  should 
be  evaluated  there. 


Therefore,  on  February  9,  he  called  Mr.  Charles  Horsky  of  Covmg- 
ton  and  Burlmg  here  m  Washmgton  and  transferred  the  evaluation  to 
hun.  That  was  all  that  was  done  on  Mr,  Gra3^'s  nomination  before 
February  16,  when  the  nomination  was  withdra%Mi.  Mr.  Connolly 
called  Mr.  Horsky  on  Februarj^  16,  and  told  him  to  stop  the  evaluation 
because  Mr.  Gray's  nomination  had  been  withdrawn.  Mr.  Horsky 
said  that  was  okay  because  he  had  not  done  anything  on  it  anyway. 
Now  that  is  the  record,  substantiated  b}^  correspondence  and  by  the 
individuals. 

I  am  ashamed,  quite  frankly,  that  this  kind  of  innuendo  and  implica- 
tion is  contamed  in  a  magazine  that  really  had  its  beginnmgs  in  the 
State  of  Connecticut  so  far  as  personnel  were  concerned,  because  if 
that  is  the  status  of  reportmg,  it  certainh^  is  a  far  cry  from  the  great 
reporting  that  built  Time,  Inc. 

Point  No.  2 :  The  political  role  that  Mr.  Gray  played.  He  does  belong 
to  the  Republican  Party  as  do  I,  and  I  have  certainly  been  active 
durmg  the  past  dozen  j^ears  in  Republican  politics  in  the  State  of 
Connecticut  and  I  have  never  heard  of  Pat  Gray's  role  in  the  Republi- 
can Party,  or  Republican  politics  in  the  State  of  Connecticut.  He 
plaj^s  no  role  and  has  never  plaj'ed  a  role  in  Republican  politics  in  the 
State  of  Connecticut.  So  I  tliink  we  can  throw  that  out  the  window 
as  being  innuendo. 

And  lastly,  Mr.  Chau*man,  we  come  to  what  I  consider  to  be,  and 
I  am  sure  the  members  of  the  committee  also,  the  No.  1  issue  that 
confronts  the  entire  Congress  and  the  executive  branch,  and  that  is 
the  integrity  of  thought  and  the  integrit}^  of  practice  within  this 
great  democracy  of  ours  and  it  is  very  much  under  test  at  this  moment 
in  time. 

I  don't  think  I  have  to  review  my  credentials  insofar  as  my  total 
belief  in  a  press  free  to  tell  us  everything  that  is  gomg  on  around  us  in 
this  countr}'.  And  I  also  believe  very  firmh^  in  law  enforcement  free 
of  politics,  and  I  certainly  believe  in  a  political  system  where  its 
participants  are  free  from  dishonesty  of  thought  or  deed.  Let  me  say 
right  now  in  relation  to  the  Select  Committee  that  I  serve  on  with  the 
distinguished  Senator  from  North  Carolina,  commonly  referred  to  as 
the  Watergate  Committee,  if  one-tenth  of  Avhat  I  keep  on  reading  is 
true  in  relation  to  some  of  the  activities  of  ray  own  party,  God  help 
the  person  or  persons  who  either  participated  dnectly  or  indirectl}'  in 
what  I  consider  to  be  an  American  disgrace  and  a  Republican  shame, 
and  I  very  much  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  untarnished  American 
dream. 

Now  insofar  as  Pat  Gray's  relation  to  these  personal  beliefs  of  mine, 
I  believe  he  is  a  man  of  absolute  mtegrity,  and  I  believe  he  is  a  man  of 
intellectual  capacity,  and  I  know  that  he  believes  not  only  in  the  words 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  this  Nation,  but  the  spirit,  and  I 
think  that  is  even  more  important  nowadaj^s. 

And  I  think  that  should  your  committee  and  the  Congress  see  fit 
to  appoint  this  man  that  he  will  exercise  a  leadership  in  the  FBI  that 
is  on  behalf  of  all  Americans. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

The  Chair:man.  Do  I  understand  from  you  that  consideration  of 
him  for  appointment  to  the  circuit  court  of  appeals  was  A\T.thdrawn 
because  he  was  to  be  nomhiated  for  Deputy  Attorney  General? 


4 

Senator  Weicker.  ]Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  glad  you  raised  this  point. 
It  sUpped  my  mind.  It  has  been  a  well  known  fact  that  for  the  past  9 
months  I  have  made  no  move  to  fill  this  vacancy  on  the  second  circuit 
court  of  appeals,  pending  the  decision  of  the  President  whether  or  not 
to  nominate  Pat  Gray  to  the  Directorship  of  the  FBI.  I  have  held  it 
open.  Would  I  take  that  course  of  action  if  I  had  known  that  the  man 
had  been  rejected  by  the  ABA  in  an  earlier  evaluation?  I  am  glad  3^ou 
asked  the  question  and  that  is  the  answer  and  I  think  it  speaks  for 
itself. 

Senator  Ribicoff.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  add  that  Senator  Weicker 
had  talked  to  me  some  time  ago  about  recommending  Mr.  Gray  to 
the  second  circuit  court,  which  covers  our  State  of  Connecticut.  At 
that  time  I  told  Senator  Weicker  that  as  far  as  I  was  concerned  I  had 
the  highest  regard  for  Patrick  Gray  and  I  would  enthusiasticall}'' 
support  the  proposal  of  Senator  Weicker.  Subseciuentl}^  I  was  told  by 
Senator  Weicker,  and  also  in  a  kidding  manner  by  Pat  Gray,  that  he 
had  been  nominated  for  the  Deput}''  Attorney  Generalship  and  was 
going  to  take  that  instead  of  taking  the  life  security  of  the  second 
circuit  court.  He  felt  that  if  the  President  wanted  him  to  serve  in 
that  capacity,  he  would  so  serve.  So  I  reaffirm  the  statements  of  my 
colleague.  Senator  Weicker,  concerning  Patrick  Gray  on  the  second 
cu'cuit  court. 

The  Chairman.  Anj'  questions,  gentlemen? 

Thank  you. 

Senator  Weicker.  Thank  3^ou. 

The  Chairman.  Do  3^ou  solemnly  swear  the  testimony  you  are 
about  to  give  is  the  truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth, 
so  help  you  God? 

TESTIMONY  OF  LOUIS  PATRICK  GRAY  III,  NOMINEE  TO  BE 
DIRECTOR,  EEDERAL  BUREAU  OF  INVESTIGATION 

Mr,  Gray,  I  do,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  a^ou  have  a  prepared  statement. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  I  do,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  want  to  go  through  that  statement  before 
any  questions  are  asked  of  you? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Y^ou  Tnay  proceed. 

Mr.  Gray.  Mr.  Chairman,  and  members  of  the  committee,  I  am 
pri^dleged  and  honored  to  appear  before  this  distinguished  committee 
of  the  U.S.  Senate. 

The  President  has  seen  fit  to  send  my  name  to  the  U.S.  Senate,  and 
the  Senate  now  has  the  responsibilit}^ — and  for  the  first  time  the 
opportunity — to  advise  and  consent  to  the  nomination  of  the  Director 
of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation. 

The  President  has  made  his  decision  and  now  the  U.S.  Senate  sets 
out  to  discharge  its  responsibility  to  examine  into  my  Cjualifications 
and  work  its  will  in  reaching  a  decision. 

With  regard  to  my  background  and  professional  qualifications,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  have  sent  to  each  member  of  the  committee  a  copy  of 
my  responses  to  a  personal  data  questionnaire  of  the  American  Bar 
Association  prepared  by  me  when  it  was  believed  that  I  might  be 
considered  for  an  appointment  to  the  Federal  judiciary.  I  thought 


these  might  be  helpful  to  the  Senators,  since  the  questions  of  the  ABA 
were  searching  and  my  responses  detailed  and  documented  with 
exhibits. 

Also,  for  the  first  time,  the  Senate  has  the  opportunity  to  inquire 
into  and  evaluate  the  manner  in  which  a  man  other  than  John  Edgar 
Hoover  has  discharged  the  responsibilities  and  exercised  the  power  of 
this  great  office. 

But  fn"st,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  state  a  few  of  my  basic  beliefs 
that  I  consider  to  be  directly  related  to  the  manner  in  which  I  have 
performed  nw  duties  these  last  10  months  and  in  which  I  will  perform 
my  duties  in  the  months  and  3''ears  that  lie  ahead. 

I  believe  in  the  United  States  of  America,  not  only  as  a  nation  and  a 
people,  but  as  an  ideal  that  has  helped  to  reshape  the  world. 

I  beheve  in  the  democratic  form  of  government,  and  in  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  people. 

I  believe  in  a  government  of  law,  enacted  by  the  people  through 
their  representatives,  and  not  in  a  government  of  men.  I  believe  that 
where  this  kind  of  law  ends,  tyrann}^  begins,  and  I  believe  that  the 
people  have  the  right  and  the  duty  to  oppose  such  tyranny. 

I  believe  that  individual  constitutional  rights  are  basic  to  our 
society  and  our  form  of  government,  and  I  include  not  only  the  rights 
of  the  accused  to  the  full  protection  of  the  law,  but  also  the  rights  of 
all  citizens  to  have  that  same  protection. 

I  believe  that  it  is  possible  for  popular  government  to  protect 
itself  from  overthrow  without  den3-ing  basic  freedoms,  and  I  consider 
that  one  of  the  principal  responsibilities  of  the  FBI  and  its  Director 
is  to  prove  that  this  can  be  done. 

I  believe  in  the  FBI  as  a  vital  American  institution.  When  it  is 
criticized,  I  will  look  into  the  charges  to  determine  whether  they 
have  any  validit}''.  And  if  they  do,  I  will  make  the  changes  necessary 
to  maintain  the  FBI's  posture  as  the  finest  investigatory  agency  in 
the  world.  If  they  are  not  valid,  I  will  defend  the  FBI  with  all  the 
personal  energies  and  capabilities  at  my  command. 

I  did  not  ask  the  Attorne}^  General  or  the  President  to  place  me  in 
the  position  of  Acting  Director  on  May  3,  1972,  nor  did  I  ask  anyone 
else  to  intercede  for  me.  I  believed  then  and  I  believe  now  that  the 
position  of  Director  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  seeks 
the  man  and  not  vice  versa. 

I  said  then  and  I  say  today  that  my  appointment  as  Acting  Du'ector 
was  accepted  by  me  and  interpreted  by  me  as  a  return  to  the  service 
of  my  country,  a  return  to  the  service  of  all  the  people  of  the  United 
States  whom  I  had  served  so  long  in  the  U.S.  Navy  without  regard  to 
party,  to  politics,  or  to  ideology. 

I  am  aware  of,  and  humbled  b}'',  the  responsibilities,  as  well  as  the 
power,  of  the  office  I  have  occupied  during  the  last  10  months.  But,  I 
am  not  afraid  of  the  responsibilities,  nor  do  I  fear  to  use  the  power 
in  the  national  interest  and  in  keeping  ^^dth  constitutional  safe- 
guards. Every  decision  I  have  made  has  been  considered  carefull}^, 
and  I  have  approached  each  with  a  sense  of  humility. 

The  record  of  performance  is  there.  I  accept,  Mr.  Chairman,  full 
responsibility  for  that  record. 

No  one  can  doubt  the  tremendous  challenge  inherent  in  following 
the  footsteps  and  building  on  the  legacy  of  John  Edgar  Hoover,  whose 


6 

personal  vision  and  ideals,  and  whose  leadership,  made  the  FBI  an 
institution  respected  and  honored  by  millions  of  our  fellow  citizens. 

Thomas  Jefferson  said  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  "I  succeed  him;  no 
one  could  replace  him." 

I  could  and  do  say  the  same  about  Mr.  Hoover.  If  ollow  him  in  a 
position  of  great  responsibility  to  our  people  and  to  our  Nation.  He, 
together  with  the  men  and  women  of  the  FBI  who  served  A\dth  him 
during  the  years  1924  to  1972,  created  and  built  a  magnificent  organi- 
zation devoted  to  the  service  of  our  country. 

I  welcome  this  opportunity  to  set  forth  for  the  committee,  the 
Senate,  and  the  American  peoj^le,  an  accounting  of  my  decisions  and 
my  actions,  how  I  went  about  learning  at  first-hand  the  operations  of 
the  FBI,  examining  and  evaluating  them,  the  changes  I  have  made, 
my  veiwpoints,  and  the  conclusions  I  have  reached  about  this  American 
original. 

Every  American  is  a  shareholder  in  the  FBI.  Every  American  has 
a  right,  I  believe,  to  know  the  frank  and  candid  reactions  and  views 
of  the  man  who  has  held  this  responsible  position  since  May  3  of 
last  year. 

When  I  became  Acting  Director,  I  made  a  key  decision.  I  decided 
that  I  would  not  be  a  mere  caretaker,  making  no  waves  and  taking  no 
actions.  Rather,  as  Acting  Director,  I  would  not  only  make  those 
decisions  necessary  for  the  day-to-day  conduct  of  FBI  operations  but 
also  those  long-term  decisions  essential  to  the  continued  effectiveness 
and  efficienc3^  of  tlie  organization. 

Mr.  Hoover's  death  left  a  serious  void.  The  members  of  the  FBI 
were  stunned  and  deeply  grieved.  They  were  accustomed  to  strong 
leadership.  I  believed  that  only  by  taking  a  positive  and  active  ap- 
proach, by  working  closel}'  with  the  traditional  leadership  of  the  FBI, 
could  we  come  through  this  critical  period  of  transition. 

I  approached  my  assignment  with  deep  feelings  of  respect  and 
admiration  for  the  FBI.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  there  were  no  stars  in 
ni}^  CA'es.  I  had  my  feet  on  the  ground  and  was  read^^  to  ask  the 
tough  questions. 

It  is  true  that  I  had  no  i^rofessional  law-enforcement  experience 
prior  to  my  entry  into  the  FBI.  I  had  not  been  handicapped  or  pre- 
disposed in  any  way,  and,  strange  as  these  words  may  sound,  I  think 
there  is  sound  basis  for  this  statement.  The  FBI  is  an  investigative 
agency  accustomed  to  working  on  a  daih^  basis  ^^'ith  inquisitive  lawyers 
and  responding  to  tough  questions.  The  law-enforcement  expertise  is 
there  in  great  abundance,  and  that  expertise  has  responded  mag- 
nificently to  my  appearance  on  the  scene  and  to  my  brand  of 
leadership. 

Basic  to  my  approach,  however,  was  a  desire  to  learn,  to  keep  an 
open  mind,  to  become  a  part  of  the  FBI  as  a  living,  active,  human 
organization. 

Wliat  made  it  tick?  ^Vliat  were  the  sinews,  muscles,  and  nerves 
that  held  it  together?  Wliat  were  its  problems?  ^Vlio  were  the  FBI 
people,  both  at  headquarters  and  in  the  59  field  divisions  across  the 
United  States?  How  could  I  earn  the  respect  of  these  dedicated  men 
and  women,  so  that  I  could  lead  them  effectivel}^  and  so  that  we  could 
work  together  as  the  FBI  had  always  worked,  as  a  team,  as  a  "we" 
organization. 


On  my  very  first  weekend  in  office,  I  developed  a  series  of  topics  to 
be  examined  by  me  and  the  senior  officials  of  the  FBI — which  I  later 
distilled  into  13  avenues  of  inquiry — dealing  with  such  topics  as  or- 
ganized crime,  subversion,  narcotics  traffic,  and  espionage.  A  cop}'  of 
these  avenues  of  inquiry,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  appended  as  exliibit  "A" 
to  this  statement. 

Thus  was  launched  the  first  group  of  a  series  of  studies  that  continue 
to  this  day  and  will  be  continumg  under  a  new  Office  of  Planning  and 
Evaluation  far  into  the  future. 

I  have  been  privileged,  as  no  outsider  had  ever  before  been  so 
privileged,  to  observe  the  performance  of  the  FBI  at  first  hand,  to 
direct  its  performance,  to  question  its  performance,  and  to  evaluate 
its  performance. 

It  is  a  rare  tribute  to  ?slr.  Hoover,  and  to  the  men  and  w  omen  who 
built  the  FBI  with  him,  for  me  to  be  able  to  sa)  to  you  today  that  this 
magnificent  organization  of  human  beings  responded  with  a  zest,  an 
enthusiasm,  and  with  an  all-consuming  fidelity  to  perfection  that  is 
unparalleled  in  my  experience. 

As  the  days  passed,  the  position  papers  and  study  papers  achieved 
a  degree  cf  excellence  that  seemed  to  challenge  me,  my  own  personal 
staff,  and  the  senior  executives  of  the  FBI  to  find  any  point,  a  single 
topic,  that  should  have  been  covered  and  w-as  not. 

These  early  days  formed  the  most  intensive  educational  experience 
I  have  ever  encountered,  stimulating  and  filled  with  insights.  I  asked 
the  men  and  w'omen  of  the  FBI  to  "show  me" — and,  beyond  all  ex- 
pectation, they  showed  me  wherein  the  FBI's  reputation  resides. 

At  the  same  time,  I  wanted  to  get  to  know  them  personally ,  It  was 
no  graven  image  or  historical  mausoleum  whose  leadership  I  inherited 
when  I  moved  to  FBI  headquarters.  It  was  a  working  organization. 
It  was  a  human  institution. 

I  made  a  special  effort  to  visit  our  field  divisions,  and,  to  date,  I 
have  visited  all  of  them  except  one.  I  visited  the  people  of  our  head- 
quarters divisions  here  in  Washington.  I  talked  to  these  dedicated  men 
and  women — to  the  special  agents  in  charge  of  the  field  divisions,  to 
the  special  agent  who  works  the  cases  on  the  street,  to  the  stenographer, 
to  the  file  clerk.  I  met  with  them.  I  wanted  to  see  them,  to  talk  to 
them,  and  I  wanted  them  to  see  me.  This  was  a  period  of  transition, 
a  period  of  trial,  evaluation,  and  measurement  on  both  sides. 

I  consider  these  visits  to  the  field  and  to  our  headquarters  divisions 
to  be  of  overriding  importance  to  the  effectiveness  of  our  overall 
effort  and  to  our  morale.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  men 
and  women  of  the  FBI  share  this  view. 

I  moved  into  the  FBI  wdth  a  leadership  philosoph}^  that  comes  down, 
fundamentall}^,  to  a  choice  between  the  meat  axe  and  an  attitude  of 
mutual  trust  and  confidence.  A  new'  man  can  enforce  control,  which 
is  wdiere  the  meat  axe  comes  in,  or  he  can  build  confidence — confidence 
up  and  confidence  do\vn.  He  can  run  a  penal  colony,  or  a  living, 
breathing,  human  organization,  with  all  the  risks  that  entails  and  all 
its  incomparable  strengths.  I  chose  the  latter  course,  and  I  am  proud 
to  report,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  morale  in  the  FBI  is  high,  and  I  am 
pleased  to  say  that  it  has  always  been  high. 

Very  naturally,  as  the  Acting  Director,  I  based  my  conduct  of  the 
operations  of  the  FBI  on  certain  principles — principles  that  have  set 


8 

the  tone  for  1113'  10-month  administration.  I  would  like  to  share  some 
of  them  with  you,  for  these  are  principles  that  affect  not  only  the  FBI 
internally  and  operationally  but  affect  its  role  in  our  free  societ}^. 

First,  I  am  determined  that  the  FBI  will  remain  completely  and 
absoluteh^  nonpolitical.  This  is  one  of  the  pillars  of  its  historic  strength. 
This  is  a  policy  that  enables  the  FBI  to  perform  efficiently,  regardless 
of  which  great  political  party  holds  the  reins  of  government,  a  policy 
that  enables  the  FBI  to  carry  out  its  responsibilities  without  the  pull 
of  political  allegiance  or  the  thrust  of  political  influence. 

When  I  met  with  President  Nixon  last  May,  at  the  time  of  my  ap- 
pointment as  Acting  Director,  he  gave  me  only  one  instruction,  and 
he  reiterated  it  on  the  16th  of  tliis  month,  that  the  FBI  and  its  Di- 
rector continue  to  stay  out  of  politics  and  to  remain  free  of  politics. 
I  was  not  at  all  surprised  to  receive  this  instruction.  It  typifies  our 
past  relationship,  which,  for  a  decade  and  more,  has  always  been 
essentially  professional,  on  my  part,  as  a  law3xr  and  administrator. 
It  is  going  to  remain  that  way. 

I  pledge  to  the  members  of  this  committee,  to  the  Senate,  and  to  the 
American  people,  that,  if  the  Senate  advises  and  consents,  and  the 
President  appoints,  I  will  cause  the  FBI  to  continue  to  exercise  the 
highest  degree  of  professional  competence  in  the  interest  of  our  Nation 
and  all  its  people.  At  no  time  will  political  considerations  or  influence, 
in  anv  shape  or  form,  alter  or  guide  mv  decisions  or  the  activities  of 
the  FBI. 

If,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  unable  to  persevere  in  this  determination 
for  nnj  reason,  if  my  loyalties  to  the  Nation's  elected  leadership,  to 
the  Constitution,  and  to  my  job,  ever  come  into  conflict,  I  will  resign 
at  once  and  return  to  my  beloved  law  firm  in  southeastern  Connecticut. 

In  following  another  operating  principle,  I  have  tried  to  open  the 
windows,  so  to  speak,  to  give  the  public  and  the  news  media  an  op- 
portunity to  see  a  little  more  of  the  FBI's  internal  workings,  not  just 
its  final  accomplishments. 

I  happen  to  believe — with  Thomas  Jefferson — that  our  democracy 
is  a  very  fragile  and  precious  form  of  Government,  and  I  believe  that 
it  has  lasted  all  these  years  because  an  interested  and  informed  elec- 
torate has  had  confidence  in  its  institutions.  If  the  American  people 
are  informed  of  the  facts,  they  can  be  counted  on  to  make  the  right 
decisions  and  support  the  right  decisions  most  of  the  time.  And  they 
become  informed  primarily  through  a  free  press,  reporting  objectivel}'' 
and  factually. 

I  realize  that  the  FBI  cannot  live  in  a  fishbowl.  We  are  an  investiga- 
tive agency  and  an  intelligence  agency.  Constitutional  due  process 
and  national  security  considerations  demand  a  measure  of  secrecy 
for  the  protection  of  individuals,  to  protect  the  integrity  of  the 
investigative  process  itself,  and  for  the  common  good,  the  general 
welfare  of  society  as  a  whole. 

It  is  now  FBI  policy,  however,  and  to  the  maximum  extent  possible, 
to  furnish  information  to  the  news  media,  to  answer  questions,  to 
allow  them  to  have  a  firsthand  look  at  some  of  our  activities,  in  the 
hope  that  such  a  policy  -will  enable  them  to  better  understand  and  to 
report  to  the  American  people  the  facts  regarding  FBI  operations. 

If  the  American  people  are  not  informed,  or  are  misinformed,  some 
of  the  blame  must  necessarily  rest  with  us.  We  are  making  the  effort, 
and  will  contmue  to  make  the  effort,  to  work  with,  not  against,  the 
press. 


The  committee  might  be  interested  in  knowing  that,  during  the 
past  10  months,  1  have  met  with  more  than  1,000  members  of  the 
fourth  estate  representing  all  segments  of  the  media.  1  have  met 
with  a  large  number  of  them  in  my  office  in  head-to-head  situations, 
and  in  groups.  I  have  talked  to  them  over  the  telephone;  I  have 
answered  their  inquiries  at  press  availability  conferences.  On  my 
\'isits  to  our  field  di\'isions,  1  have  specifically  announced  in  advance 
that  I  w^ould  be  available  to  any  interested  member  of  the  press. 

I  have  also  undertaken  to  make  myself  available  through  public 
appearances  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  before  law  enforcement, 
civic,  church,  educational,  and  business  groups.  I  believed  then,  and  1 
believe  now,  that  this  is  one  way  in  which  I  can  report  to  the  American 
people  about  their  investment  in  the  FBI.  Fourteen  of  33  speeches 
made  through  November  17,  1972,  and  sponsored  by  organizations 
other  than  the  FBI  or  the  Department  of  Justice,  were  made  in  con- 
nection with  my  visits  to  our  field  di\dsions.  Durmg  this  same  period,  I 
also  made  eight  speeches  sponsored  by  the  FBI  or  the  Department.  I 
submit,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  a  fair  reading  of  these  speeches  will 
indicate  clearly  that  these  were  not  political  or  campaign  speeches. 
There  was  no  intent  that  they  be,  and  they  were  not  ^^Titten  to  be, 
political  or  campaign  speeches. 

^Ir.  Chairman,  I  have  appended  a  list  of  these  appearances  as 
exhibit  "B"  to  this  statement. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  admitted  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Gray.  Also,  I  have  endeavored  to  talk  with  indi^^duals  who 
have,  in  the  past,  been  critical  of  the  FBI.  I  believe  in  personal 
dialog,  in  person-to-person  discussions,  where  there  is  some  chance, 
however  slight,  of  correcting  misunderstandings.  On  occasion,  these 
have  arisen  because  accurate  information  about  the  FBI  has  been 
lacking.  I  have  tried,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  to  correct  such  mis- 
understandings. 1  am  also  well  aware  that  dialog  is  of  no  avail  if  the 
human  mind  is  closed. 

Still  another  operating  principle  is  that  the  FBI  ^^'ill  continue  to  be 
a  servant  of  the  people,  all  the  people,  responsive  to  protecting  both 
the  security  and  the  rights  of  every  citizen. 

I  believe  that  there  is  no  principle  more  important  to  a  free  society 
than  that  government  should  remain  close  to  the  people,  and  that  the 
dispersion  of  power  in  our  Federal  system  is  one  of  the  great  safeguards 
of  the  hberties  of  a  free  people. 

Fears  have  been  expressed — b}^  a  very  small  number — that  the  FBI 
is  becoming  a  national  police  force,  that  it  is  infringing  on  the  liberties 
of  the  individual  citizen.  I  pledge  to  this  committee,  the  Senate,  and 
the  American  people,  that  as  long  as  I  am  its  Director,  the  FBI  will 
not  exceed  the  jurisdictional  authority  defined  by  the  President  and 
the  Congress,  the  FBI  ^\•ill  respect  the  constitutional  guidelines  handed 
down  by  the  Judiciary.  In  brief,  the  FBI  will  not  take  the  law  into  its 
o-wn  hands. 

As  for  my  principles  of  management,  you  know  that  a  new  man  at 
the  top  can  signal  any  number  of  radical  changes,  or  his  arrival  can 
mean  a  continuation  of  the  same  policies  and  procedures,  with  or 
without  careful  examination  and  evaluation. 

I  resolved  to  follow  a  course  of  continuity  and  change,  that  of 
continuing  the  same  policies  and  procedures,  -with  a  careful  examina- 
tion and  evaluation  being  conducted  simultaneously. 


10 

It  is  not  my  A\ay  to  move  in  ^Wth  the  broad  brush  of  change  if  the 
organization  has  been  deHvering  the  product  coupled  with  a  handsome 
return  on  equit}^  This  was  the  situation  in  the  FBI. 

^[y  evahiation  of  the  FBI,  based  on  probing  and  study,  is  clear. 
The  Nation  can  be  proud  of  the  quality  of  its  performance.  The  men 
and  women  of  the  FBI  are  complete  professionals.  Their  prime,  and 
overriding,  characteristic  is  a  sustamed  pursuit  of  excellence  in  service 
to  the  American  people. 

It  is  true,  however,  based  on  our  evaluations,  that  some  changes  in 
policies  and  procedures  have  occurred.  There  is  nothing  discrediting 
about  this.  Mr.  Hoover,  to  his  eternal  credit,  built  a  superb  organiza- 
tion unic^uely  adaptable  to  change,  wliicli  is  why  it  has  always  remained 
so  effective  in  its  operations. 

Some  of  these  changes  have  been  substantive  in  nature  and,  as  you 
are  undoubtedly  aware,  some  have  been  well  publicized.  For  example, 
the  FBI  since  last  May  accepts  applications  from  women  who  aspire 
to  become  special  agents,  a  policy  determmation  which,  incidentally, 
also  happens  to  be  m  accord  with  the  law  of  the  land. 

We  now  have  seven  female  agents  who  have  been  assigned  to  field 
divisions  of  the  FBI  following  their  successful  completion  of  our  new 
agent's  training  course.  They  are  performing  the  same  duties  as  their 
male  counterparts. 

Eight  more  female  agents  are  still  in  training.  Four  of  them  are 
members  of  the  new  agents  class  that  will  graduate  tomorrow,  and 
they  too  will  be  reporting  to  field  divisions. 

Early  last  June,  changes  were  made  in  the  grooming  standards  for 
members  of  the  FBI,  but  not  in  the  requnement  that  they  be  neat, 
clean,  and  presentable  in  appearance.  We  changed  the  grooming  stand- 
ards; we  did  not  abolish  them. 

I  know,  and  every  man  and  woman  in  the  FBI  knows,  that  the  FBI 
would  self-destruct  without  discipline.  We  have  not  abandoned  our 
disciplinary  procedures  but  we  do  approach  them  and  apply  them  in  a 
different  manner.  A  law-enforcement  agency  of  any  kind  or  size  cannot 
function  at  all,  let  alone  function  in  the  pubHc  interest  in  accordance 
with  law,  without  a  firm,  fair,  and  swift  disciplinary  system. 

On  May  26  last,  I  announced  that  an  Office  of  Equal  Employment 
Opportunity  Affairs  was  being  established  for  the  specific  purpose  of 
intensifying  the  FBI  efforts  to  recruit  more  black  Americans,  Asian- 
Americans,  Spanish-speaking  Americans,  and  American  Indians. 

My  initial  inciuiries  last  spring  showed  that  the  FBI's  overall  record 
in  this  area  had  been  good.  Special  efforts  had  been  made  to  recruit 
employees  from  these  groups  of  Americans,  but  it  had  proven  difficult 
to  attract  people  qualified  in  every  particular  to  meet  the  standards  for 
FBI  agents. 

Although  recruiting  among  these  Americans  is  tough,  we  will  not 
lower  our  standards,  and  I  am  certain  that  members  of  these  groups  of 
America.ns  would  not  want  us  to  do  so. 

Representatives  of  the  Office  of  Equal  Employment  Opportunity 
Affairs  visit  our  field  divisions  across  the  United  States  and  meet  with 
influential  community  leaders  and  members  of  the  press,  among  others, 
in  an  effort  to  recruit  qualified  applicants  from  these  groups. 

Since  May  1972,  we  have  achieved  an  increase  in  the  FBI  from 
among  these  groups  of  Americans,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  have  appended 
exhibit  "C"  to  this  statement  which  sets  forth  the  small  gains  that  lots 
of  hard  work  has  so  far  produced. 


11 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  admitted  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Gray.  Another  basic  change  in  our  policies  concerns  the  re- 
ordering of  investigative  priorities  in  the  area  of  organized  crime. 

Organized  crime  is  a  tenacious,  brutal,  and  costly  social  malady. 
The  investment  capital  of  the  organized  criminal  element  is  generated 
by  its  tremendous  illegal  gambling  combines  and  narcotics  traffic 
throughout  the  country.  This  investment  capital  enables  the  under- 
world to  finance  other  criminal  activities,  as  well  as  fraudulent  activi- 
ties in  legitimate  business  and  industry. 

In  order  to  strike  organized  crime  where  it  would  do  the  most 
damage,  that  is,  at  the  top  and  in  the  pocketbook,  we  are  concentrating 
our  manpower  on  the  larger,  more  powerful  hoodlum  groups,  on  the 
upper  echelon  leaders,  and  on  their  most  prolific  sources  of  illicit 
revenue. 

The  emphasis  is  not  on  assembling  statistics,  or  keeping  a  high 
caseload,  but  in  using  our  resources  to  hit  dii'ectly  at  the  strong 
points  of  the  criminal  enemy. 

Along  these  same  lines,  we  have  improved  our  acquisition  and  dis- 
semination of  narcotics  intelligence.  Violations  of  the  narcotics  laws, 
of  course,  are  not  '\\-ithin  the  investigative  jurisdiction  of  the  FBI. 
But  m  the  performance  of  our  regular  work,  we  receive  information 
concerning  the  drug  traffic  and  about  the  prmcipals  mvolved  in  this 
traffic. 

Last  summer,  following  receipt  and  study  of  a  thorough  in-house 
survey  of  the  narcotics  problem  that  I  had  ordered,  I  instructed  each 
of  our  field  divisions  to  designate  a  special  agent  as  the  narcotics 
coordinator  for  the  division.  So  also  I  directed  that  a  narcotics  co- 
ordinator be  designated  at  FBI  Headquarters,  and  I  ordered  each 
special  agent  in  charge  of  our  field  divisions  to  mtensif}^  the  acquisition 
of  narcotics  intelligence  for  transmission  to  agencies  having  du'ect 
investigative  responsibilities  in  cases  involving  violations  of  our 
narcotics  laws. 

This  shift  in  emphasis  has  improved  our  efficiency  in  generating 
narcotics  intelligence  and  this,  in  turn,  is  proving  to  be  of  real  help  to 
the  agencies  with  jurisdiction  in  the  narcotics  field. 

We  have  established  a  new  FBI  policy  designed  to  insure  complete 
fairness  regarding  civil  rights  investigations  in  cases  involvmg  com- 
plaints against  police  officers — fairness  to  the  officers  and  the  com- 
plainant. We  do  not  assign  special  agents  to  make  these  investigations 
who  have  worked  with  the  officers  involved  in  the  normal  course  of 
business.  We  bring  in  an  agent  who  has  had  no  prior  close  association 
with  the  local  police  department.  This  policy  is  in  the  interests  of  all, 
our  agents,  the  police,  and  the  public  we  both  serve. 

In  August  1972,  the  evaluation  process  that  I  had  been  spearhead- 
ing jDersonally  for  3  months  was  formalized  in  an  Office  of  Plannmg 
and  Evaluation.  This  office  has  been,  and  will  be,  conducting  de- 
tailed studies  of  all  phases  of  FBI  operations,  policies  as  well  as  pro- 
cedures. We  are  giving  ourselves  a  good,  thorough  overhaul,  and  we 
believe  that  we  are  the  people  best  qualified  to  undertake  this  task. 

The  FBI,  an  agency  of  nearly  20,000  employees,  needs  topflight 
management.  To  further  this  objective,  I  have  altered  some,  and 
initiated  new,  management  programs.  For  example,  last  October  I 
established  Executive  Selection  Boards  comprising  experienced  top 
level  executives  from  both  our  Headquarters  and  field  staffs  to  recom- 
mend to  me  those  men  in  our  ranks  best  qualified  to  advance  to 


12 

positions  of  greater  responsibility  and  authority.  Another  example  is 
the  institution  of  management  instruction  programs  for  our  executives. 
These  individuals  are  required  to  keep  abreast  of  the  latest  ideas  and 
concepts  in  effective  decisionmaking,  work  planning  and  productivity, 
performance  appraisal  and  evaluation,  and  human  behavior. 

And  if  that  reference  to  "human  behavior"  seems  inappropriate  to 
the  FBI  agent — it  is  not.  The  men  and  women  of  the  FBI,  like  all 
law-enforcement  people,  are  expected  these  days  to  serve  as  baby 
sitters,  handholders,  and  behavioral  scientists,  even  as  we  expect 
them  to  confront  the  most  desperate  criminal  with  guns  and  guts 
and  raw  courage.  It  is  not  easy  for  the  police  officer  to  serve  in  this 
dual  capacity.  But  increasingly  he  must.  He  has  to  be  more  of  a 
sociologist,  and,  simultaneously,  no  less  of  a  cop. 

During  the  past  10  months,  we  have  taken  steps  to  bring  our 
headquarters  and  field  staffs  closer  together.  In  an  organization 
stretching  from  Honolulu  to  Bangor,  Maine,  from  Anchorage,  Alaska, 
to  San  Juan,  Puerto  Rico,  there  is  always  the  danger  of  polarization, 
of  hard-core  divisiveness  between  headquarters  and  the  field  staffs. 
As  I  indicated  previoush^  I  have  visited  58  of  the  59  field  divisions. 
I  have  personally  met,  and  talked  at  length,  with  each  of  our  special 
agents  in  charge,  as  well  as  other  field  officials.  I  want  to  know  their 
problems  because  their  problems  are  our  problems.  I  seek  their 
counsel;  in  fact,  I  demand  their  advice  and  counsel.  I  want  to  establish 
that  personal  rapport  which  builds  confidence  and  enhances  perform- 
ance. 

In  this  connection,  the  FBI  now  encourages  the  interchange  of 
ideas  between  field  and  headquarters  officials.  We  have  made  this 
exchange  a  reality  by  visits  to  and  from  the  field  and  to  and  from 
headquarters  by  our  key  officials. 

Most  important,  we  have  taken  steps  to  increase  the  productivitj^ 
of  the  special  agent  in  carrying  out  his  daily  assignments.  To  this  end, 
we  have  eliminated  a  number  of  sheer  administrative  chores  requiring 
considerable  paperwork,  thereby  stealing  his  time  from  investigative 
tasks.  For  example,  last  June,  shortly  after  I  became  Acting  Director, 
we  discontinued  the  requirement  to  maintain  so-called  time  in  the 
office  statistics,  that  is,  keeping  account  of  the  time  spent  by  the  agent 
in  the  office  during  working  hours. 

We  are  seeking  to  free  the  special  agent  from  unnecessary  adminis- 
trative burdens,  thereby  enabling  him  to  turn  in  an  even  better 
performance  during  his  day's  work. 

The  FBI  forms  part  of  a  law-enforcement  team,  a  team  that  today 
stands  on  the  front  lines  against  crime. 

I  have  made  a  special  effort  to  meet  personally  ^^'ith  my  brother 
law-enforcement  officials.  Last  year,  for  example,  some  50  of  the 
Nation's  chief  law-enforcement  officials,  representing  the  major  urban 
and  metropolitan  areas  of  our  land,  met  Avith  me  and  top  execu- 
tives of  the  FBI  in  my  office  in  small  groups  so  that  we  could  have 
meaningful,  thorough  discussions.  We  reviewed  our  specific  needs  in 
the  fight  against  crime,  the  cooperative  services  of  the  FBI,  and  ways 
in  which  we  could  be  of  further  help  to  them  and  they  to  us.  Their 


13 

cooperation  has  been,  and  continues  to  be,  of  great  assistance  to  the 
FBI. 

Last  spring  our  new  FBI  Training  Academ}^  opened  at  Quantico, 
Va.,  affording  increased  opportunity  for  improved  pohce  training  and 
thereby  contributing  heavily  to  the  development  of  police  professionals. 

One  of  the  more  promising  features  of  our  National  Acadenw  pro- 
gram is  our  affiliation  \vith  the  University  of  Virginia.  We  are  brmging 
the  cop  to  the  campus  and  the  campus  to  the  cop.  Both  are  profiting 
from  a  really  important  learning  experience. 

We  have  held  three  national  s^^mposia  at  the  new  FBI  Academy 
at  Quantico.  These  have  been  devoted  to  major  police  concerns  such 
as  police-community  relations,  urban  police  patrol  practices,  and  ter- 
rorism. A  national  seminar  on  current  bombing  problems  began  at  the 
Academy  on  Februar}^  25  and  concludes  toda}",  February  28. 

To  help  law  enforcement  agencies  cope  A\dth  the  gro\\dng  danger  of 
deadly  attacks,  the  FBI  developed  a  week  long  antisniper  and  sur- 
vival training  course  ui  the  fall  of  1971.  A  total  of  940  officers,  repre- 
senting 186  agencies,  have  been  afforded  this  trainmg  at  Quantico  and 
another  200  agencies  are  waiting  to  be  accommodated. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  prepared  an  exhibit  to  tliis  statement  that 
sets  forth  additional  changes  made  in  FBI  policies  and  procedures 
during  the  past  10  months,  exhibit  D.  I  do  this  to  save  time,  not 
to  indicate  that  they  are  of  lesser  importance  than  the  ones  I  have 
discussed  \vith  the  committee.  Some  are,  but  some  are  not. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  exhibit  D?  It  ^^all  be  admitted  mto  the 
record. 

Mr.  Gray.  Mr.  Chairman,  after  10  months  as  a  member  of  the 
FBI  and  from  my  vantage  point  as  Acting  Director,  I  ha^■e  found  the 
FBI  to  be  a  superb  organisation,  a  faithful  servant  to  our  democratic 
tradition.  Its  foundations  have  been  well  built;  its  people  are  complete 
professionals;  and  their  dedication  is  to  service,  integrity,  and 
excellence. 

There  have  been  changes  in  style,  simply  because  I  am  Pat  Gray 
and  not  Mr.  Hoover.  I  have,  where  I  felt  it  was  necessar}^,  made  some 
changes,  changes  that  I  was  convinced  would  be  beneficial  not  only 
to  the  FBI  but  also  to  the  people  we  serve. 

But  the  FBI  remains  the  same,  an  FBI  dedicated  and  loyal,  imbued 
with  the  concepts  of  fidelity,  bravery,  and  integrit}^— the  servant  of 
the  people. 

I  am  highl}^  optimistic  about  the  future  of  the  FBI  and  our  free 
society. 

I  am  optimistic  about  the  future  of  the  FBI  because  I  know — as 
only  an  insider  can  ever  really  know — that  the  people  of  the  FBI  are 
imbued  Avith  a  spirit  and  dedication  to  constitutional  principles  that 
augurs  well  for  the  future. 

The  FBI,  operating  as  it  does  under  the  constitutional  controls  of 
our  democratic  system  of  government,  is,  I  believe,  one  of  our  greatest 
national  institutions. 

I  am  honored  and  humbled,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  have  been  nominated 
by  the  President  to  be  its  Director. 

Thank  you,  sir. 

(The  exhibits  referred  to  follow :) 


91-331—73- 


14 

Exhibit  A 

Avenues  of  Inquiry 

(1)  Organized  Crime. 

(2)  Subversion  (Specifically  include  in  this  paper  a  detailed  analysis  and 
justification  for  our  current  policies  with  regard  to  the  investigation  of  individuals 
where  there  has  been  no  specific  violation  of  Federal  law.  Is  additional  legislation 
needed  in  this  area?) 

(3)  Drug  Abuse  (This  is  one  of  the  Nation's  most  pressing  problems  and  we 
should  be  sure  that  the  FBI  is  doing  everything  possible  to  assist.  Set  forth 
specific  contributions  which  we  have  made  during  the  last  six  months.  What 
further  should  we  and  can  we  do?  Imagination  and  ingenuity  should  be  exercised 
to  explore  possibility  of  further  contributions  within  our  jurisdictional  lines  and 
without  diverting  substantial  manpower  from  other  critical  areas.) 

(4)  National  Police  Force  (What  safeguards  do  we  have  to  prevent  the  FBI 
from  becoming  a  National  police  force?  What  role  should  the  Inspection  Division 
play  and  should  the  Inspection  Division  report  directly  to  the  Director?) 

(5)  Bureau  Files  (We  have  a  vast  amount  of  information  in  our  general  files, 
in  the  National  Crime  Information  Center,  and  in  the  Identification  Division. 
Are  we  taking  adequate  security  precautions  to  prevent  leaks  to  unauthorized 
persons?  Are  state  safeguards  adequate  to  insure  the  confidentiality  of  National 
Crime  Information  Center  information?  Are  classification  procedures  completely 
responsive  to  our  needs  and  to  the  needs  of  other  Federal  agencies?  Is  there  a 
need  for  certain  of  our  files  of  a  very  sensitive  nature  to  be  given  greater  security 
than  the  criminal  files?) 

(6)  FBI  Jurisdiction  (Should  we  have  an  office  specifically  set  up  for  the  evalu- 
ation of  pending  legislation  and  to  study  the  needs  for  any  additional  legislation? 
Are  FBI  jurisdictional  lines  sharply  defined?  Is  there  any  need  for  legislation  to 
transfer  some  of  our  responsibilities  to  other  Federal  agencies?) 

(7)  Police  Training  (Is  our  training  responsive  to  the  needs  of  the  police 
agencies  we  serve?  What  role  should  the  FBI  assume  in  this  field?  Examine  our 
National  Academy  program.) 

(8)  Personnel  Matters  (Recruiting,  applicant  standards,  evaluation,  discipline, 
including  methods  by  which  employee  is  advised  of  requirements.) 

(9)  Director's  Advisory  Committee  (Need  for,  proposed  make-up,  and  method 
of  operation.) 

(10)  Director's  Staff  Group  (Mid-range  and  long-range  policy  planning  and 
evaluation.) 

(11)  Office  of  Minority  Affairs  (What  steps  can  be  taken  to  increase  the  num- 
ber of  qualified  ajjplicants  from  minority  groups?) 

(12)  Should  the  FBI  Special  Agent  Position  be  Opened  to  Women?  (Require- 
ments of  the  position  should  be  carefully  considered.) 

(13)  Grooming  and  Personal  Appearance  Standards  for  FBI  Employees 
(Here  we  must  consider  the  tenor  of  the  times.  We  must  be  sure  that  our  standards 
are  reasonable  and  yet  at  the  same  time  preserve  the  effective  image  of  the  Bureau.) 


15 


o 

I— 

C5 


O 


< 

00 

< 


>- 
< 
en 
o 


CQ 

Q- 

DO 

— 1 
>- 

m 

o 


< 
CO 


00 

o 


o 

I— 

CO 


o  -rs 


5  £ 

—I  uu 

5  — ' 

TO  "O 


00  ^ 


£      3 


_i     o 


1  =  = 


o  > 


c  o  o  o 


<-a' 


E       .- 


o  •— ^  >  -* 

Z       <u. 


c 

c 

o 

js: 

> 

DO 

o 

TO 

>- 

-i: 

00 

«c 

-: 

ro 

c» 

O) 

-^ 

;^ 

CSJCSJ 

csj  r^  r^ 

r-cn  en 

cr> 

— « 

-— « 

roO 

^  E—  <«  _-o  °-£  I'  c 
o  TO  o  o^  0)  o  g—  ro 


--? 


■a  H 

o  ro 
.  3  Q- 


•3E 


_  ,     00 

O      .   =>    05 

i_    tJ     crt 

—   Q);p  — 

TO  "=  ojo 
3      u-- 


ED    t   « 


t_      Vfc/      — 

O    q;    O 


j^    i_    O    (J 
^   =J-r-i'° 

5-=  !=.s; 

—I       <u. 


TO  -Q 
O  ^ 


E 
< 


O    (/J 


O 

d 


o 


<2  oisz^ 


-C3  cvTir)  r^cD  irTLn  to  to  ,  ^"1  rTr-J" 


■  -CS]  CNJ  CSI 

csi  r^  I —  r^ 
r^  CT>  CT)  ctj 


3    3    3    ID 


« ,x  ■  —  . 


^      o"» 


o  _ 
ds 


c  wi  cz 
m-  E 


o  m  o  *-  ro  o 


S       E 


o  m  ■ 


E ; 

c 
'-1=-' 

E  (/^  < 

.  T5  o  to 

■■E  Si-: 

o  ■* 
O 


>,<!> 


E 
E 


:  "  =  .StdIt:  o  o 


ro  ro  1, 


00  ; 

e' 


ISm.Eoo  ^,' 


:  c  c  o 
:  en  cu  :P  - 


CM  CMC 

r^  r-^  r 
CT)  cnc 


^-  .-H  c 


I  CM  CMC 


J  CNJ  cmcm 
-  :^ —  r^  f^- 


I  a>  oj  oj  tD  ^^ 

c:  c  c:  c  ^ 

I  3  a  3  =3  3 


CM  cm 

CM       r^  r^ 
en      .— . .— I 
.-T^  o 


o 
o 


10 


ce. 
o 

I— 
o 

UJ 


o 

< 

CO 

< 


>- 

■o 

«r 

QJ 

rr 

3 

C3 

■J 

x: 

O 

o 

CJ 

q: 

j 

1— 

03 

< 
a. 

1— 

.  1 

m 

>- 

IE 

m 

X 

LU 

CO 

1— 

CO 

> 

o 


O 

< 


o 
_i 
m 

ZD 

a. 


E 
E 
o 

E      -^ 

ID        I 


X  = 


E 


TOO  c        " 

CD--;  O        it 

"oj  o  CQ      "o 

o 


'to 


2       g 


Oi 


h-< 


■>, 

.X 

V) 

"o 

3 

n 

73 

O 

a> 

E 

c 

5 

TO 

c: 

TO 

TO 

(— 

o 

TZS 

O 

< 

zz 

n 

£: 

TO 

F 

1 

QJ 

E 

m 

X 

o 

X 

o 

OJ 

3 

QJ 
QJ 

OJ 

s 

o 

O 

1 

o 

^ 

CO 

CO 

i— 

OOO 

§ 


a  o     - 

"  .  -  oo 
:  OJ  « 
u  >> 

5  CD  P3 
I  , — ^1       I 


CNJCNJCM 

t —  ( —  i^ 
CD  CTl  O") 


>^B 


(NJCSJCNJ  CVJ 

r —  r-^  r*.  r^ 
CT)  <D  CTl  O^ 


Z3    =3    3    13 


CT)    (U 


o  o  5i 


O    Q. 


.S  oo    ' 

5  p  <»^ 

o  t:  o 


E 
E 


-eE    -s 


-   oojooocroooooooOf^—  oo 
(u  =  jr  QJ  c  o  5^ 


QJ  QJ 


*-  =3    CS. 


£•2 


lg 


:5E  =  -. 


'  o  o 

!   OT3 


TO  CO  .—  >- 
-Q  ii    3    TO 

—  .  _  o  -c: 

<D lO 

CSJ  CSJCNJOJ 
1 —  P-*  r^  r-. 
CTi  CTJ  O  CT> 


o  __- 

.  c:  ■—  TO  —  t-*- 
tv  f=  ^  C  c 

a;  c  ^  Q.~ 
oooocos 

C\I  CM  CNJ  CSJ  CSI 

r-.  r^«-  r —  r —  r^^ 
<T>  (T)  <T>  <T>  lyi 


CO  <D 
<D  = 
CO  => 

*-*  — 

MO 


"  o 
So: 


=  ^-  <D--? 

3  °  ^  < 

O  — ;    O  - 

e:  J5  J=  1^ 
o  3  c:  tu 
■■CCKco 

'en  CD  Oi 


-D   Q>^ 
CD    TO 


5<  << 


.E  —  E 

QJ   Q)   03 

f  f  ^    .    . 

TO   TO   O    O    O 
3    =3_X3^, 

E  E  "^ 


V) 

< 

OJ    i_ 

aotu 
QJca 


Ms, 


S  CJ 

oo 


^c=-> 


c  —        ~ 


iE  S  o  QJ  X  i 

T3-^---*-;    QJ  : 

w   O  -^  -^  —  ■ 

Q_  CO  CD  QQ  . .  , 


CsJCSJCSJ 

) —  r-.  r^ 

CJiCTJCD 


•  -CM  CM 

CM  r^  r^ 


*  Gj     *x: 
^^  1- 

TO    Q.^-Q 
to     r.     oo     P 

r-,    ^    iXi    ,. 
TO^^   OJ 

CMCSJ  CM  CM 

r^  r^  r^  rx. 
CT>  CT5  CTi  cr> 


O   X 


O  ao    *       QJ 

c  Q.  5?  x'  o" 
oCog.«-E 

TO-=jn°-  c= 

>  '-'  ^  —    TO 

>  0<;lu  00 


00 


*^  CSl  <sg  Csl  CM 

i;*^  r-^  r-.  r^  r-* 
CT>CT^ o^  CD  cr> 


«     ^     -     ^.— TltTlO  CM  CO 
.— ".— 'OOOO*— «•— "— 'CMCM 

Di)abobbhDbci£Qi]cibQb 

I33Z3ZI   =   =J=3=>=3 
<<<<<<<<< 


333qjqjqjqjcjjQ)CIjQJQJ 
<<<OOOOOOCOC/200COOOC/3 


a.  CL  CLO. 
OJ   OJ    OJ   OJ 


CL  CL  Ci  ex  C2. 

QJ     QJ     QJ     QJ     QJ 

CO  CO  GO  CO  00 


17 


>v 

TO 

^  s; 

CO 

U 

c 

9.  c 

"tr'w 

3 

•^ 

^ 

.Sf    03 

■=  = 

O 

(U 

=>  = 

0)  o 

03 

>!, 

s 

"S 

^    dj 

t/5    CU 

C 

o 

<D    o 

^  c 

to 

S 

< 

X 

CO  X 

(^    03 

o 

LU 

«^ 

"S 

ca. 

c: 

o 

**- 

(U  a. 

E 
w 

TO 

OJ 
CO 

'i 

o 

TO 

s 
< 

o 
a. 

c 

TO 

0)  aj 

j£ 

-c  *^ 

>  j£ 

o 

0) 

C3 

00 

■"CO 

£  o 

a. 

.£= 

-C 

c  _ 

O)    Q. 

00 

1— 

h- 

< 

—  < 

CO  CO 

>>     -^  ;^ 


*-  M    13 


00 


c  '^    — 


ro 

o 

fc 

o 
00 

E 

QJO 

■K  E 


c  <u 
<5 


S  <"  c 
S  ">  o 

to  0".iz  ^ 

>-  .  -  u  c 

O   00   c=  U3 

-o  1 OJ 

c:  *-  o  o  . 

o--^:^  <»■ 

.5  0)  -73  • 

ra  <J-o  S: 

=  c  =  5 

k-  a>  -3  -^ 


CU 


Q."- 


—  o  o 


V-I 

o 

o 

O) 

<— 

TO 

OJ 

'c 

o 

., 

CO 

H 

o 

CO 

E  . 

.-a 

u  do 


■o      -c;  —  : 


O 

d 


(U 


u  •*-> 

<u  = 
^=     . 

VJ    m   TO    C:    Oi 


CO 

o 

<o 

(U 

o 

{-" 

TO 

tz 

CO 

O) 

<U 

&oo 

CD 
CU 

=3 

F 

EF 

o 

o 

Jd 

33 

ou. 

"> 

=J 

TO 

o 

=*. 

a= 

cz 

o 

-n 

•  o 

o 

I  n 

o. 

1    13 

H 

lO 

o 

1  ^^^^ 

TO 

■  QiCQ 

D.       5co:3 


to    «3.^ 
CO    i_^ 


Q.  —      "Ha. 


r" 

v> 

r- 

o 

S.2 

S  ^      E 


o 


oj  ■ 


13    GJ    >  3■  — 
0■  M  d  O-  > 
C   O  =    03 
■  -  TO    O  TO    o 

.:£  u  TO ^ 

ce      z<Li. 


MCLg 


i_  cr  r3  >  ! 

.2  °  =^5  ' 

.E  E  ra  «  I 

TO    O    TO    C    I 
^    Ci3    =3 

<00< 


TO 


CO  "^ 


i  to 
.9-0 

I    ^    TO 

c  o 
o  ^ 


bC  ( 


-    TO 


00 -J^ 


D  _;  QJ  TO  = 

^  O  OJ  03   3 

t/)  JZ  »-  — 

-    OJ  ^  i_  -^  " 

5  =  2  S£< 

Q.=  52  g: 


.2  i 

c=  b 

o  -^ 

O  c 

— .  £■ 

C  > 

<l>  rr 


to 

EQ) 
Oi 
1^ 

Sen 

Q.      -*^ 

CO    *^ 

DO  dj-a: 

.5  .CO  j^ 

lo'o  c 
E  OJ  o) 

O   X    »_ 

==    =   = 

o  o  c 

TO    c^  *3 


-.<C/5CJ 


c  o 


_  <g 

S  IS 

=  ^" 

CO  Cio 

S  Eo 

_  o-a 


E     -s;^ 


'o  <u 
o  J= 
cot— 


co^ 


■S  E 


75  >- 

;g-"-E 


DO  TO  *C  >;^  (g  — -  >— 
c.£5~£2S. 

I— co_i     oqzci 


c  n:  >  o 
1)  ;s  03  to 

=       .   C   TO    03 

SCO  ^x*^ 


0)  <1> 

-  •.  "  S  ™  rl  3 
I35l— c/jODCO 


<»  . 


„-!=   a=3   TO    Q.TO.--g^.E    i   g 
TO;=^CO^Oc5=gm™.H'-! 


o      <^ 
TO  tao     T-  "^  ra 


CsJcsjCNJCNJCNJCNJCNjCNJCVICSJCNlf^JcgCNJ-, 

CDcncT>cncTicncDcr>c^o^CT)Cr>cncD^ 

CD  Or-H.— (cotDr^ca^a-LOin  to'o^  o  CD*"— ^~-^'' 
•— 'Qi— •-— t'-t'— 'T-HCNjesjcMCNJcsicsirococo'^ 

O  CJOOOOCJCJOOOOOCJCJO 

O   OOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ 


eg  CM  r-- 
r--  r^  o^ 

CTl  CD  ,— « 


O 

Q 

TO       - 

>    = 

^  O 

S"5i 


CNJCsJ 

cncT> 


|0  0 

TO        -      - 
>    C    C 


_   m   (T3 


CO  on  CO 
r^  r-.  r^ 
tT>  o^  c^ 


CiJ, 


:  to 


cno^^^^. 


n  ^  ^  ra  Qi  >  -^ 

k--=  cr  OJ  r3.^-^ 

"aO  9--^  <U  ^  <=  ^ 
i;^  n  </i  —  ^  fn  ^ 

"^  <—  m  "^  rz:  — ?  3 

r^  CO  r^  r>.  r-  p**  ^ 
o^  r^  o>  cr>  CTi  CD  •-" 

CNJ  —  — '  — '  ^  CNI  CO 


ca        ro  a>  o  03  03  03,^ 
—;      --;  u.  u.  u- u- Lt- S 


^     iZ    "^ 


18 

Exhibit  C 

Increases  in  Minority  Employment 

Following  is  a  tabulation  as  of  February  1,  1973,  of  FBI  employees  who  are 
members  of  four  minority  groups,  compared  with  the  number  employed  as  of 
May  1,  1972: 


FBI 
Field  offices     headquarters 


Total 


FBI  black  employees  as  of  IVIay  1, 1972: 

Agents 

Clerks 

Total 

FBI  black  employees  as  of  Feb.  1, 1973: 

Agents 

Clerks 

Total.. 

FBI  Spanish-surnamed  employees  as  of  May  1, 1972: 

Agents .--.-. 

Clerks. 

Total 

FBI  Spanish-surnamed  employees  as  of  Feb.  1, 1973: 

Agents 

Clerks 

Total 

FBI  American  Indian  employees  as  of  IVlay  1, 1972: 

Agents 

Clerks 

Total.. 

FBI  American  Indian  employees  as  of  Feb.  1, 1973: 

Agents _. 

Clerks 

Total 

FBI  Asian-American  employees  as  of  IVIay  1, 1972: 

Agents 

Clerks _. 

Total 

FBI  Asian-American  employees  as  of  Feb.  1, 1973: 

Agents 

Clerks 

Total _._. 


60 

3 
1,231 

63 

154 

1,385 

214 

1,234 

1,448 

67 

5 
1,358 

72 

195 

1,553 

262 

1,363 

1,625 

61 

1 
116 

62 

110 

226 

171 

117 

288 

74 

1 
134 

75 

120 

254 

194 

135 

329 

3 

0 

0 

3 

2 

2 

5 

0 

5 

11 

0 

1 

11 

7 

8 

18 

1 

19 

15 

0 
22 

15 

23 

45 

38 


19 
28 


22 


0 
26 


60 


19 

54 


47 


26 


73 


Exhibit  D 

Additional  Changes  in  FBI  Policies  and  Procedures  May  3,  1972  to  Feb- 
ruary 28,   1973 

1.  Delegation  of  greater  authority  to  Special  Agents  in  Charge  to  handle 
investigative  matters. 

2.  Reduction  in  frequency  of  routine  administrative  reportmg  from  the  field. 

3.  Instituted  annual  2-da3'  conferences  at  Headquarters  for  Special  Agents  in 
Charge  and  eliminated  the  requirement  that  they  attend  Inservice  classes. 

4.  Instituted  policy  of  bringing  Assistant  Special  Agents  in  Charge  and  super- 
visors to  Headquarters  for  specialized  management  training. 

5.  Increased  personal  consultation  between  the  Acting  Director  and  the 
Executives  Conference.  Formerly,  the  Executives  Conference  met  with  the 
Associate  Director. 

6.  Left  the  two  Assistant  to  the  Director  positions  vacant  in  an  effort  to  shorten 
the  lines  of  reporting  between  the  Assistant  Directors  and  the  Acting  Director. 

7.  Realigned  supervisorj^  responsibility  of  certain  investigatory  matters  among 
the  Headquarters  divisions. 


19 

8.  Instituted  program  of  sending  top  Headquarters  personnel  to  the  field 
divisions  for  consultations. 

9.  Reorganized  functions  previously  assigned  to  the  Crime  Research  Division 
by  transferring  responsibility  for  Congressional  and  press  services  to  the  Director's 
Office  and  remaining  functions  to  other  divisions. 

10.  Instituted  a  policy  of  transferring  top  Headquarters  personnel  to  the  field 
and  top  field  personnel  mto  Headquarters. 

11.  Reestablished  a  liaison  section  to  facilitate  and  expedite  business  with 
other  government  agencies. 

12.  Puiged  inactive  arrest  records  of  individuals  age  80  and  older  from  the 
fingerprint  files. 

13.  Reduced  the  length  of  tours  for  personnel  on  foreign  assignments  from  3 
years  to  2  years. 

14.  Re-emphasized  Inservice  training  for  Special  Agents  and  instituted  special- 
ized classes  for  Inservice  training. 

15.  Eliminated  the  requirement  that  Agents  in  Resident  Agencies  submit  dailj^ 
reports  of  their  activities. 

16.  Clarified  the  Hardship  Transfer  Policy,  which  allows  transfers  for  personnel 
with  severe  personal  hardships  which  could  be  alleviated  bj^  a  change  in  office  of 
assignment. 

17.  Modified  the  weight  limits  for  Special  Agents  to  make  them  more  realistic 
in  accoi  dance  with  expert  medical  advice. 

18.  Changed  policy  on  granting  advance  of  funds  to  an  employee  officially 
transf erred,  to  include  advances  for: 

(1)  Per  diem  and  mileage  when  travel  is  by  a  privately  owned  automobile; 
and 

(2)  Subsistence  expenses  while  occupying  temporary  quarters. 

19.  Instituted  voluntarj^  physical  fitness  program  with  established  standards 
for  Special  Agents,  allowing  them  to  use  up  to  three  one-hour  periods  per  week 
during  regular  working  hours  for  this  purjoose. 

20.  Revised  procedures  for  evaluating  disciplinary  action  in  connection  with 
inspections. 

21.  Established  tougher  physical  tests  for  Agents  in  training. 

22.  Cut  from  two  years  to  one  the  time  period  that  Special  Agent  applicants 
must  wait  to  be  re-examined  if  they  fail  to  qualify  on  the  first  try. 

23.  Changed  the  ciualifications  for  the  Special  Agent  position  to  consider  certain 
enlisted  military  service  as  sufficient  under  the  Modified  Program  for  Special 
Agent  applicants.  Formerly  the  only  enlisted  service  which  was  considered 
sufficient  was  that  in  military  intelligence. 

24.  Changed  the  qualifications  for  tour  leaders  so  that  female  clerical  person- 
nel are  eligible  to  be  tour  leaders,  a  position  formerh'  restricted  to  male  clerical 
personnel. 

2.5.  Changed  the  smoking  rules  to  apply  equallj^  to  men  and  women.  Formerly 
female  emploj^ees  were  prohibited  from  smoking  at  their  desks. 

26.  Changed  rules  to  allow  employees  to  have  coffee,  soft  drinks,  etc.,  at  their 
desks.  Formerly,  this  had  not  been  allowed. 

27.  Changed  policy  to  allow  certification,  where  appropriate,  of  former  em- 
ployees as  desirable  for  employment  in  the  criminal  justice  field  upon  completion 
of  their  education  as  required  to  qualify  for  Law  Enforcement  Education  Pro- 
gram (LEEP)  loans.  Prior  policj'  was  to  certifj',  where  appropriate,  onlj'  current 
employees. 

28.  Discontinued  the  program  of  gathering  biographical  data  on  non-incumbent 
Congressional  candidates. 

29.  Caused  a  White  House  Fellow  to  be  assigned  to  the  Bureau  for  the  first 
time. 

30.  Established  the  Law  Enforcement  Training  Advisory  Committee. 

31.  Discontinued  the  compilation  of  statistics  on  the  recovery  of  stolen  motor 
vehicles  which  were  transported  in  interstate  commerce  unless  the  vehicle  was 
recovered  specifically  as  a  result  of  FBI  investigative  efforts. 

32.  Instituted  a  training  program  for  airline  personnel  in  anti-hijacking  pro- 
cedures. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  a  very  fine  and  able  statement,  Mr. 
Gray. 

You  state  that  the  President's  instruction  to  you,  his  only  instruc- 
tion when  you  were  appointed,  was  to  stay  out  of  politics,  is  that 
correct? 


20 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  sir.  He  did  that  on  May  3,  then  also 
on  May  4  in  the  presence  of  my  wife,  and  my  wife  volunteered  the 
information  she  was  going  to  go  down  and  work  as  a  volunteer  for 
the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President,  and  he  told  her  not  to  go 
and  to  have  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  politics. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  in  fact,  have  you  stayed  out  of  politics? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  have  done  my  very  level  best  to  stay  out,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, and  I  believe 

The  Chairman.  Well,  have  you  stayed  out? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Now,  the  charge  is  made  that  the  White  House  got  you  to  go  to 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  to  make  a  speech.  Wliat  are  the  facts  about  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  facts  in  that  case  are  that  a  memorandum  was 
sent  to  me,  and  I  was  one  of  perhaps  20  to  30  people,  I  am  told,  in- 
viting my  attention  to  this  particular  speaking  engagement  at  the 
City  Club  of  Cleveland,  and  stating  in  the  last  paragraph  of  that 
memorandum,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe,  that  Ohio  was  important  to 
us  and  it  would  be  a  thing,  a  nice  tiling,  to  do. 

Let  me  stop  for  just  a  moment  here  and  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I 
may  have  the  permission  of  the  committee  to  submit  for  the  record 
the  actual  documentary  information  regarding  this  particular  incident. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Gray.  All  right,  now  I  would  like  to  continue.  I  reviewed  the 
record,  and  I  saw  that  this  particular  group,  the  City  Club  of  Cleve- 
land, had  been  sending  invitations  to  the  Director  of  the  FBI  since 
1968  asking  that  he  attend.  I  saw  in  the  record  that  the  staff  of  the 
FBI  had  recommended  that  the  Director  attend  because  of  the  com- 
position of  this  group. 

Now  at  the  particular  time  this  memorandum  came  to  me,  I  al- 
ready had  the  in\'itation  from  the  people  at  the  City  Club  and  I  imme- 
diately asked  that  the  staff  of  the  FBI  look  into  this  and  determine 
whether  or  not  there  were  any  political  overtones  here.  I  received 
back  a  memorandum  which  is  a  part  of  the  documentation  that  I 
wish  to  insert  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  admitted. 

(Mr.  Graj^  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documents  for  the 
record :) 

The  White  House, 
Washington,  B.C.,  June  13,  1972. 
Memorandum  for:  Hon.  L.  Patrick  Gray. 
From:  Patrick  E.  O'Donnell. 
Subject:  Freedom's  Forum — The  City  Club,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

The  Citj^  Club  has  asked  our  assistance  in  attempting  to  secure  your  partici- 
pation as  a  key  speaker  sometime  during  the  period  following  July  1,  1972.  Since 
its  founding  fifty  years  ago,  Cleveland's  Cit}-  Club  has  been  a  focus  and  one  of 
the  bulwarks  of  freedom  of  speech  in  one  of  America's  great  cities.  The  Club 
maintains  a  deep  interest  in  affairs  of  government,  economics  and  politics,  both 
national  and  international.  It  offers  a  prestigious  meeting  place  for  the  open 
discussion  of  important  social,  political  and  economic  problems. 

The}'  meet  every  Fridaj^  at  noon  and  have  a  300  maximum  attendance.  However, 
if  you  were  inclined,  they  could  "go  public"  and  provide  almost  a  crowd  of  any 
size  you  might  desire.  Both  Secretaries  Hodgson  and  Shultz  have  recently 
addressed  the  Club  and  just  recently  Ambassador  Bush  delivered  a  well-received 
speech. 

With  Ohio  being  crucially  vital  to  our  hopes  in  November,  we  would  hope  you 
will  assign  this  forum  some  priority  in  planning  your  schedule.  In  the  event  you 


21 

are  interested,  I  have  full  background  material  available.  Incidentally,  Under 
Secretary  of  Commerce  Jim  L3'nn  is  quite  familiar  with  the  Club. 
Many  thanks. 


Memorandum 


U.S.  Government, 

June  16,  1972. 


Re  Request  for  appearance  of  Acting  Director  Graj^. 

To:  Mr.  Bishop. 

From:  M.  A.  Jones. 

Subject:  The  City  Club,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

A  memorandum  dated  June  13,  1972,  from  Mr.  Patrick  E.  O'Donnell,  advised 
Mr.  Gray  that  his  assistance  had  been  requested  to  secure  Mr.  Gray's  participa- 
tion as  a  key  speaker  before  The  City  Club  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  sometime  after 
July  1,  1972.  He  pointed  out  that  the  Club  meets  Friday  at  noon,  and  although 
they  have  a  maximum  attendance  of  300,  they  could  "go  public"  if  Mr.  Gray 
were  so  inclined.  He  commented  that  Secretary  Hodgson  and  Shultz  recently 
addressed  the  Club  as  well  as  Ambassador  Bush.  The  Club  offers  a  prestigious 
meeting  place  for  the  open  discussion  of  important  social,  political,  and  economic 
problems. 

The  Cleveland  Office  has  advised  that  The  Citj^  Club  has  no  political  connec- 
tions and  actually  the  majority  of  the  members  could  be  classified  as  "liberals." 
The  Club  engages  in  discussing  controversial  subjects  and  it  is  entirely  possible 
that  some  embarrassing  questions  could  be  put  to  Mr.  Graj^  which  might  prove 
embarrassing  to  him  and  the  Bureau.  They  also  noted  that  these  meetings  are 
carried  live  on  local  radio  stations. 

Although  Cleveland  points  out  that  this  Club  discusses  controversial  subjects, 
it  is  believed  that  it  might  be  advantageous  for  Mr.  Graj^  to  appear  before  such  a 
group.  As  indicated,  the  Club  is  dominated  by  liberals  and  these  are  the  type  of 
people  we  should  be  contacting  in  an  effort  to  "convert  them." 

Recommendation: 

Mr.  Gray  may  desire  to  accept  this  invitation  and,  if  so,  he  should  indicate 
some  Friday  after  July  1st  when  he  could  appear.  (Due  to  other  commitments, 
it  would  appear  that  a  Friday  in  August  or  early  Fall  might  be  the  most  con- 
venient). Thereafter,  additional  details  will  be  obtained  from  Mr.  O'Donnell. 


U.S.   Government, 

June  27,  1972. 
Memorandxjm 

Re  Request  for  Appearance  of  Acting  Director  Graj-,  August  11,  1972. 

To:  Mr.  Felt. 

From:  T.  E.  Bishop. 

Subject:  The  City  Club,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

In  a  memorandum  from  Jones  to  Bishop  dated  6/lb/72,  there  was  set  forth 
details  concerning  an  invitation  extended  to  Mr.  Gray  by  The  City  Club  of 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  for  him  to  be  a  key  speaker  at  a  Fridaj''  noon  meeting  of  the 
Club  sometime  after  July  1,  1972.  It  was  recommended  and  approved  that  Mr. 
Gray  accept  the  invitation  if  possible.  Mr.  Gray  noted,  "I  will  do  it  but  push  it 
out  ahead.  Check  with  Mrs.  Neenan." 

After  consulting  with  Mrs.  Neenan,  on  6/26/72  Bishop  advised  Patrick  E. 
O'Donnell  of  The  White  House,  through  whom  the  invitation  had  been  extended, 
that  Mr.  Gray  could  make  this  appearance  on  August  11,  1972.  O'Donnell  stated 
that  he  would  check  with  Lawrence  Robinson,  Executive  Director  of  The  City 
Club  of  Cleveland,  (telephone — area  code  216,  861-1260),  to  ascertain  if  this  date 
is  satisfactory  and  advise  Bishop  of  the  result  on  6/27/72. 

On  6/27/72,  Mr.  O'Donnell  advised  Bishop  that  Mr.  Robinson  had  informed 
him  that  the  Club  would  be  delighted  to  have  Mr.  Gray  speak  to  it  at  its  noon 
meeting  on  Friday,  August  11,  1972.  He  advised  that  Mr.  Robinson  stated  that 
he  would  furnish  Mr.  Gray  additional  details  concerning  the  Club  and  the  meeting 
in  question  in  a  letter  to  be  forthcoming  in  the  immediate  future. 

RecomTnendation: 

That  Crime  Records  Division  begin  preparing  an  appropriate  speech  for  use 
by  Mr.  Gray  on  August  11,  1972. 


22 

Jb  Robinson  Co.,  Jewelers.  Inc., 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  June  28,  1972. 
Mr.  L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 

Acting  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 
Department  of  Justice,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Director  Gray:  Thank  you  for  agreeing  to  speak  at  the  City  Club  of 
Cleveland  on  August  11,  1972! 

Patrick  E.  O'Donnell  has  been  enormously  helpful  to  us  and  we  are  writing  at 
his  suggestion. 

Our  usual  schedule  is  to  have  lunch  at  Noon,  followed  by  a  half  hour  talk  be- 
ginning at  12:30  p.m.  Questions  follow  until  we  close  at  1:30  p.m. 

We  will  have  an  office  available  for  your  private  use  before  and  after  your 
presentation. 

I  will  be  in  touch  with  your  Assistant  Director  Bishop  with  additional  details. 

We  are  looking  forward  to  the  privilege  of  having  you  here. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Larry  Robinson. 


The  City  Club, 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  July  7,  1972. 
Mr.  L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 
Acting  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 
De-partment  of  Justice,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Director  Gray:  We  are  very  pleased  that  you  have  accepted  our 
invitation  to  speak  at  our  Forum  on  Friday,  August  11.  As  you  may  know  this 
Forum  has  brought  many  well  known  people  to  Cleveland  and  raised  many 
crucial  issues  in  the  past.  Many  of  our  speakers  have  used  this  opportunity  for  a 
major  policy  statement. 

The  Forum  is  carried  live  by  one  radio  station  (WCLV)  and  rebroadcasted  in 
its  entirety  by  four  others.  We  also  get  full  TV  and  press  coverage. 

We  begin  with  lunch  at  noon,  go  on  the  air  at  12:30  with  your  speech,  and 
close  with  a  half  hour  of  questions  till  1 :30.  Please  plan  your  presentation  to  last 
25-30  minutes. 

Will  you  please  send  us  some  biographical  materials  and  the  topic  of  your 
speech  so  that  we  may  give  your  coming  adequate  publicity. 

Thanks  again  for  planning  to  be  with  u?  on  June  16.  We  look  forward  to  seeing 
you  then. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Alan  Davis,  Executive  Director. 


July  12,  1972. 
Mr.  Larry  Robinson, 
J.  B.  Robinson  Co.,  Jewelers,  Inc., 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Dear  Mr.  Robinson:  Assistant  Director  Bishop  has  advised  me  of  your  very 
kind  offer  of  cooperation  in  regard  to  my  forthcoming  trip  to  your  city  and  you 
may  be  sure  I  deeply  appreciate  yom*  gracious  hospitality. 

Thank  you  for  offering  to  meet  me  at  the  airport,  but  this  will  be  unnecessary 
since  I  previously  made  arrangements  for  transportation  from  there  to  the  City 
Club  of  Cleveland.  Mr.  Bishop  or  a  representative  from  our  local  office  in  Cleveland 
will  be  in  contact  with  you  prior  to  my  speech  concerning  any  additional  details 
relative  to  my  visit. 

With  best  wishes  and  warm  respect, 
Sincerely  yours, 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 

Acting  Director, 

July  13,  1972. 
Mr.  Alan  Davis, 
Executive  Director,  The  City  Club, 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Dear  Mr.  Davis:  I  received  your  letter  of  July  7th  and  am  certainly  looking 
forward  to  being  with  you  at  your  Forum  on  August  11th. 


23 

In  regard  to  your  request,  I  am  enclosing  a  copy  of  my  biographical  sketch  and 
my  photograph  which  you  may  use  as  indicated  in  your  letter.  A  representative 
from  my  office  will  be  in  contact  with  you  concerning  the  topic  of  my  address. 
With  best  wishes  and  warm  respect, 
Sincerely  yours, 

Pat  Gray 
L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 

Acting  Director. 

Mr.  Gray.  This  stated  in  no  uncertain  terms  that  this  was  not  a 
pohtical  group,  gave  its  composition,  and  said  if  anj'thing  this  was  a 
liberal  group  and  even  went  so  far  as  to  say  I  ought  to  go  to  speak  to 
them  in  order  to  try  to  convert  them. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  went  to  speak  because  I  believe  that  I  should 
go  to  speak  to  all  Americans;  but  if  3^ou  asked  me  under  oath  if  I 
went  because  I  got  the  memorandum  from  the  White  House,  I  will 
saj'  no,  sir,  I  did  not.  I  went  for  difTerent  reasons. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  speech  did  j^ou  make? 

jN'Ir.  Gray.  The  title  is  in  the  exhibit  and,  as  I  remember  it,  it  had 
absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  politics.  And  the  speech,  incidentally, 
we  have  submitted — yes,  it  was  entitled  "Freedom  Under  Law,"  the 
City  Club  of  Cleveland  August  11,  1972,  and  with  the  permission  of 
the  chairman  I  would  like  to  insert  that  speech  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  admitted. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  follo^^'ing  document  for  the 

record :) 

U.S.  Deaprtment  of  Justice, 

FEDERAL  BUREAU  OF  INVESTIGATION, 

Friday,  August  11,  1972. 

"Freedom  Under  Law" — An  Address  by  the  Honorable  L.  Patrick  Gray 
III,  Acting  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation 

In  January,  1787,  our  Minister  to  the  Court  of  St.  James — John  Adams — sent 
to  the  pi-inters  a  book  which  he  thought  might  prove  useful  to  his  countrymen. 

Shays'  rebellion  had  recently  occurred  in  Massachusetts,  and  friends  there  were 
writing  that  confusion  and  anarchy  lay  just  over  the  horizon.  This  rebellion  was 
viewed  by  some  at  home  as  the  popular  uprising  inevitably  leading  to  a  dictator- 
ship which  would  restore  order  and  guarantee  the  security  of  life  and  property — at 
the  cost  of  freedmn. 

John  Adams  wrote  to  convince  his  countrymen  that  a  salutary  restraint  is  a 
vital  principle  of  libertj'.  He  also  wrote  to  persuade  his  fellow  citizens  that  good 
laws  and  orderly  government  alo7ie  could  protect  lives,  liberties,  religion,  property, 
and  character. 

Later  in  that  year  of  1787  when  our  Constitution  was  drafted,  the  framers 
placed  the  highest  priority  on  freedom  under  law — not  the  one  or  the  other,  but 
both  together,  "one  and  indivisible"! 

Alexander  Hamilton,  a  delegate  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  and  a  princi- 
pal author  of  The  Federalist  Papers,  put  it  this  way: 

"Government  is  frequently  .  .  .  classed  under  two  descriptions — a  government 
of  force,  and  a  government  of  laws;  the  first  is  the  defuiition  of  despotism,  (and) 
the  last  of  hberty." 

The  blueprint  for  self-government  created  by  the  delegates  to  the  Constitutional 
Convention  came  under  immediate  attack.  There  were  more  than  a  few,  here  and 
abroad,  who  warned  that  our  Constitution  embodied  too  radical  a  departure  from 
conventional  concepts  of  government.  It  was  termed  impractical,  unworkable, 
dangerous. 

Today  the  attack  continues — for  the  concept  of  free  men  and  women  governing 
themselves  for  the  common  good  is  virtually  as  radical  in  the  20th  Centurj-  as  it 
was  in  the  twilight  of  the  ISth.  And  make  no  mistake — it  is  radical  doctrine! 

Our  concept  of  freedom  under  law  is  banned,  barred,  forbidden  and  feared  in 
vast  areas  of  the  world  where  might  makes  right — where  suppression  wears  the 
uniform  of  the  police  and  the  robes  of  justice. 


24 

In  our  country  today,  there  are  strident  voices  proclaiming  that  the  same 
conditions  exist  in  our  land.  We  are  told  that  American  society  is  "sick"  and  that 
law  is  used  to  repress  freedom. 

This  is  demagoguer}',  pure  and  simple.  It  is  a  slander  and  a  lie. 

But  still  the  questions  persist:  Where  are  tliese  United  States  today,  and  where 
are  we  going?  How  do  we  as  American  citizens  evaluate  ourselves?  Do  we  believe 
in  our  form  of  government?  Does  our  government  care  about  people?  Is  our 
societ.y  out  of  control?  Are  the  law  officers  of  the  nation  the  tools  of  an  oppressive 
ruling  establishment? 

Well,  what  are  the  answers?  I  want  to  tell  you  what  mine  are. 

The  great  American  adventure  born  two  centuries  ago  has  gro'mi  stronger 
generation  after  generation. 

We  are  on  the  threshold  of  the  greatest  growth  pattern  in  our  history — growth 
in  the  quality  of  life  for  all  our  citizens — growth  in  our  total  effort  to  eradicate 
the  imperfections  in  human  society  (beginning,  always,  with  our  own). 

We  occupy  seven  percent  of  the  land  surface  of  the  earth.  We  are  six  percent 
of  the  world's  population.  We  account  for  almost  one-third  of  the  goods  and 
services  produced  on  earth. 

Our  national  economy  is  bulwarked  by  increased  earnings  and  a  rising  gross 
national  product. 

Production,  incomes,  employment,  business  spending,  and  consumer  buying  are 
all  showing  sharp  increases. 

The  rate  of  inflation  has  been  slowed. 

We  export  foodstuffs,  medicines,  technology,  and  expertise  to  help  feed, 
comfort,  and  care  for  millions  of  men,  women,  and  children  around  the  world. 

Material  accomplishments,  however,  do  not  begin  to  tell  our  whole  story. 

Every  citizen  of  the  United  States  is  guaranteed  legal  rights  and  protections 
of  a  magnitude  not  found  anywhere  else  in  the  world. 

All  have  the  promise  of  individual  rights  and  liberties. 

All  have  an  awareness  of  those  rights  and  liberties. 

All  have  a  guarantee  of  opportunity  to  full  realization  of  their  rights  and  liberties. 

All  have  the  assurance  that  our  Government  and  body  of  citizens  will  support 
them  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights  and  liberties. 

Advantages  such  as  these  help  make  America  the  freest  and  most  progressive 
society  in  the  world — more  than  "advantages,"  realities. 

You  wouldn't  choose  to  live  in  any  other  country.  Nor  would  I. 

No,  pessimism  does  not  yet  reign  supreme  in  these  United  States. 

But  there  are  those  who  insist  that  our  priceless  liberties  are  being  eroded — 
that  freedom  is  increasingly  in  jeopardy  across  the  United  States. 

Two  years  ago,  a  well-known  author  and  educator  warned  that  repression 
"comes  to  us  .  .  .  with  official  sanction  and  is  imposed  upon  us  by  officials  sworn 
to  uphold  the  law." 

Who  are  these  officials? 

This  author  identified  them  as  "the  Attorney  General,  the  FBI,  state  and  local 
officials,  the  police,  and  even  judges." 

Biased  as  I  may  be,  /  reject  such  an  attack — and  so  do  the  great  majority  of 
our  citizens.  The  facts  are  otherwise,  and  we  Americans  are  not  about  to  accept 
myths  in  their  place. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  know  that  the  law  enforcement  profession  is 
dedicated  to  safeguarding  the  rights  of  all  citizens — and  that  it  demands  of  its 
members  exacting  staiidards  of  fairness,  impartiality,  and  restraint. 

I  do  not  for  a  moment  suggest  that  abuses  of  authority  are  nonexistent  among 
law  enforcement  professionals. 

Unfortunately,  there  have  been  abuses  in  the  past — and  as  long  as  it's  men  and 
women  involved,  there  will  be  recurrences  in  the  future. 

But  no  profession  is  more  zealous  in  policing  its  own  ranks.  We  know  the  risks. 
And  we  know  that  the  confidence  of  those  we  serve  must  be  maintained  if  we  are 
to  discharge  the  trust  and  responsibility  placed  in  our  care. 

As  a  Nation,  we  face  a  crime  problem  that  has  steadily  been  growing  since 
1955.  Today,  there  are  clear  signs  that  the  upward  thrust  of  crime  is  being  turned 
back. 

During  the  first  quarter  of  1972,  crime  registered  its  smallest  increase — one 
percent — in  11  years.  (And  none  of  us  can  rest  until  even  that  plus  one  becomes 
zero,  and  then  a  minus.) 

Eighty  of  our  largest  cities  reported  actual  decreases  in  crime  for  this  three- 
month  period— compared  with  22  cities  in  1970,  and  59  in  1971. 

Important  successes  are  also  being  scored  in  the  counteroffensive  which  the 
law  enforcement  profession  is  pressing  against  organized  crime. 


25 

These  successes  are  being  achieved  within  the  provisions  of  our  Constitution 
and  laws — and  with  the  cooperation  and  support  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  who  know  that  America's  peace  officers  are  guardians  of  their  Uves, 
their  property,  and  their  rights. 

Let's  look  at  a  vital  area  of  our  freedoms — the  right  to  a  fair  and  impartial 
trial  as  guaranteed  all  Americans  by  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

A  slogan  coined  some  weeks  ago  insists  that  militant  extremists  who  have  been 
charged  with  crimes  should  be  immune  from  prosecution  in  our  courts  of  law. 

"The  only  fair  trial  would  be  no  trial  at  all,"  this  slogan  demands. 

This  is  a  "society-be-damned"  slogan.  It  saj^s,  in  efiect,  "Hide  the  evidence; 
gag  the  witnesses;  ignore  the  victim;  create  a  privileged  class  under  law." 

Citizens  of  the  United  States  rose  above  such  a  lopsided  system  of  injustice 
centuries  ago. 

We  will  not  turn  the  calendar  back. 

One  of  the  foremost  advocates  of  categorical  immunity  is  an  acid-tongued 
lawj'er  who  has  warned  of  "laerverted  use"  of  our  courts  to  "inhibit,  terrorize  or 
destroy  persons  who  .  .  .  have  incurred  .  .  .  hatred,  fear  or  mistrust." 

The  same  advocate  also  alleges  that  our  "judicial  process"  has  been  used  "as 
a  form  of  political  repression." 

He  is  wrong  on  all  counts — unless  we  are  ready  to  concede  that  senseless  acts 
of  violence,  including  murder,  are  legitimate  forms  of  -political  expression. 

Those  who  define  their  lawless  activity  as  political  expression  seek  only  to 
exclude  themselves  from  the  legal  structure  established  so  long  ago  under  the 
Constitution,  and  from  the  inevitable  consequences  of  their  own  acts. 

Conduct  clearly  in  violation  of  the  law — regardless  of  the  brand  name  applied 
to  such  conduct — is  still  anathema  to  the  preponderant  majority  of  Americans. 

The  American  still  believes  that  the  lawbreaker  is  to  be  arrested  and  tried  as 
prescribed  by  the  law.  Guilt  or  innocence  is  to  be  determined  in  accordance  with 
Constitutional  principles  and  not  by  mob  rule  or  pressure  group  tactics. 

Today  there  are  those  among  us  who  appear  to  prefer  a  life  style  far  removed 
from  the  mainstream  of  American  society  and  that  choice  should  be  protected.  But 
they  demand  more. 

Their  battle  cry  is,  "I  want  no  part  of  your  system,  and  I  intend  to  destroy  it. 
But  while  I  push  for  anarchj-,  I  will  continue  to  insist  on  the  protection  afforded 
me  by  the  system  that  I  attack — until  it  is  so  weak  that  it  affords  protection  to  no 
one." 

Yet  they  will  continue  to  receive  protection  from  the  system  they  attack — from 
the  Congress,  the  Courts,  the  law  enforcement  profession — even  while  the  same 
Congress,  Courts,  and  the  men  and  women  of  law  enforcement  agencies  work  to 
protect  our  legal  sj'stem  from  these  anarchists  and  separatists.  We,  at  least,  do 
believe  in  freedom! 

But  let  us  not  think  that  our  Government  of  laws  is  in  danger  only  from  those 
who  openlj^  proclaim  their  goal  to  set  aside  the  whole  of  the  legal  structure. 

There  is  another  enemy  as  well,  less  visible  perhaps  but  just  as  insidious — per- 
sons who  in  their  own  way  weaken  our  society,  damage  our  leadership  principles, 
and  completely  ignore  the  responsibilities  of  good  citizenship. 

Office  holders  who  occasionally  compromise  principle  or  a  public  trust  in  ex- 
change for  gifts  and  favors,  businessmen  who  pad  their  expense  accounts  and  de- 
flate their  income  tax  returns,  would  be  stunned  if  anyone  said  they  were  not 
responsible  and  law-abiding  citizens.  They  are — most  of  the  time. 

The  workingman  who  patronizes  after-hours  bars  and  neighborhood  book- 
makers, those  who  buy  merchandise  at  prices  and  under  circumstances  that  clearl}^ 
suggest  it  is  stolen,  contribute  to  the  survival  of  crime  in  our  society — though  they 
would  be  aghast  at  being  called  criminals. 

The  president  of  a  corporation  who  conspires  to  break  the  antitrust  laws  be- 
cause it  assures  a  certain  profit,  the  procurement  agent  who  deals  in  secret  kick- 
back agreements,  may  give  the  appearance  of  being  model  members  of  society  and 
each  undoubtedly  seeks  to  retain  that  image. 

Yet,  each  of  these  persons,  and  myriad  others  like  them  who  have  a  cavalier 
attitude  toward  the  law  when  it  suits  their  purpose,  attack  the  society  of  law  from 
within. 

If  the  law  is  to  be  defended  and  obeyed  except  when  it  is  inconvenient,  then  what 
purpose  is  served?  And  what  have  we  learned  from  the  history  and  growth  of  our 
Constitutional  democracy? 

Man  is  said  to  be  destroying  his  own  physical  environment — almost  through 
careless  disregard.  And  it  should  be  obvious  that  man  can  destroy  the  social 
environment  in  the  same  way — by  his  failure  to  appreciate  the  indivisibility  of 
freedom  and  the  law.  To  be  "law  abiding"  is  no  sometime  thing! 


26 

Yes,  there  is  a  difference,  a  vast  difference,  between  the  bomber  and  the  bettor, 
the  conspirator  and  the  cheater.  The  one  blasts,  the  other  chips  away.  But  each 
weakens  the  stature  of  the  law  in  our  society. 

The  law  enforcement  officer — the  peace  officer — ^has  the  ])rime  responsibility  to 
protect  society  from  those  who  break  or  destroy  or  undermine  tlie  law. 

But  our  society  can  never  be  protected  from  itself  if  responsible  citizens,  by  a 
subtle  change  in  attitude  toward  the  law,  abandon  their  responsibilities  as  citizens 
when  it  suits  their  purpose. 

It  is  the  duty  of  every  citizen  and  the  prime  responsibility  of  leading  citizens  to 
be  conscious  of  the  continual  need  for  affirmative  action  to  nourish  our  Govern- 
ment of  laws. 

Everyone  realizes  the  danger  of  continual  attacks  upon  police  officers  and  the 
departments  they  serve.  These  attacks  erode  the  capacity  of  the  law  enforcement 
profession  to  uphold  the  peace  that  law  should  bring. 

This  same  kind  of  attack  is  being  made  upon  the  society  of  law — from  within — 
by  many  who  take  the  easy  way  out,  who  abrogate  their  responsibilities  as  citizens, 
who  do  not  care  enough  to  uphold  the  tradition  of  our  Constitution  and  its 
authors. 

Do  not  look  just  to  the  Congress,  the  Courts,  or  the  law  enforcement  profession 
to  protect  society  from  itself. 

All  of  us  as  citizens  have  that  responsibility.  If  we  bear  that  responsibility 
lightly — and  only  when  it  suits  us— we  jeopardize  the  society  of  law  just  as  do  the 
anarchists,  the  separatists,  the  criminal  neophytes,  and  the  professional  forces  of 
organized  crime. 

Our  pledge  must  be  to  continue  to  be  worthy  of  our  matchless  heritage. 

Our  course  as  a  Nation  is  unmistakably  onward  and  upward.  Time  and  again 
we  have  proven  that  freedom  under  law  does  work. 

Our  Government  cares  about  our  people.  Our  police  officers  are  protectors,  not 
oppressors.  Our  society  is  not  out  of  control. 

As  human  beings,  we  do  not  claim  perfection.  But  it  is  an  enormous  triumph 
that  man  with  all  his  faults  dares  to  reach  for  the  stars.  This  is  his  ultimate  glory. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  the  charge  has  been  made  that  you  fired 
people  for  political  reasons.  Would  you  care  to  comment  on  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  I  have  done  what,  sir?  I  am  sorry. 

The  Chairman.  You  fired  people  for  poHtical  reasons. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  have  had  no  political  reason  whatsoever  to  fire  anyone 
in  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation.  I  did  it  for  entirely  different 
reasons,  and  if  the  committee  would  desire,  if  the  chairman  would 
desire,  I  would  submit  a  detailed  accounting  of  every  resignation  or 
retirement  that  has  occurred  in  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation 
since  I  came  in  as  Acting  Director. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a  decision  that  the  committee  will  have  to 
make. 

When  did  you  first  hear  of  the  Watergate  affair? 

Mr.  Gray.  It  was  a  Saturday,  June  17.  I  am  trying  to  think.  I 
think  I  had  already  gotten  into  the  automobile  in  Los  Angeles.  I  was 
supposed  to  leave  Los  Angeles  at  9 :30  that  morning  and  go  down  to 
Santa  Ana  to  deliver  the  commencement  address  at  Pepperdine 
University  Law  School.  I  think  I  had  already  gotten  into  the  auto- 
mobile and  was  en  route  and  when  we  arrived  at  Santa  Ana,  I  believe 
that  the  resident,  the  senior  resident  agent  there,  gave  me  the  first 
indication.  Yes,  "Between  11  a.m.  and  11:30  a.m.  Pacific  daylight 
time  resident  agent,  Santa  Ana,  briefed  Mr.  Gray."  That  is  the 
first  indication  that  I  had,  any  information  I  had  regarding  Watergate. 

The  Chairman.  What  instructions,  if  any,  did  you  give? 

Mr.  Gray.  Right  at  that  time,  I  didn't  give  any  instructions  to 
that  individual.  I  waited  until  I  could  get  to  a  telephone  and  I  called 
my  No.  2  man,  Mr.  Felt,  W.  Mark  Felt,  and  I  obtained  additional 
information   from   him.   That  was   at    12:04   p.m.   Pacific   daylight 


27 

time  and  3:04  p.m.  Eastern  daylight  time,  and  I  got  additional 
information  from  him  at  that  time  regarding  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances, and  they  were  coming  in  pretty  fast.  I  asked  him  if  we  really 
had  jurisdiction  in  this  matter  and  if  we  were  in  it  up  to  the  hilt,  and 
he  told  me  that  the  case  was  first,  as  I  recall  now,  was  first  considered 
to  be  a  burglary  in  the  early  morning  hours. 

Then  there  was  some  thought  it  was  a  bombing  and  then  electronic 
devices  were  seen  there.  Our  people  knew  instantly  this  was  an  inter- 
cept of  communications  case,  or  at  least  we  thought  it  was,  and  we 
started  in  right  away. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  your  instructions? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  told  him  to  go  to  the  hilt  and  spare  no  horses. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  done? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  that  has  been  done  and  those  instructions  were 
repeated.  You  know  these  were  just  the  first  phone  calls.  I  had  ad- 
ditional phone  calls  that  day,  those  instructions  were  repeated.  Those 
instructions  were  also  related  by  Mr.  Felt  to  the  Attorney  General  of 
the  United  States,  who  concurred  in  my  decision  to  conduct  an  aggres- 
sive investigation.  Certainly  it  was  obvious  to  me  as  the  facts  began 
to  come  in,  and  particularly  at  about,  well,  it  was  later  on  that  evening 
when  I  learned  the  identity  of  one  of  these  indi\dduals.  It  was  3 :45  p.m. 
Pacific  daylight  time  that  I  was  called  and  actually  FBI  headquarters 
advised  the  Los  Angeles  office  to  ad^^se  as  to  AlcCord  being  identi- 
fied as  an  ex-FBI  agent  and  security  officer  for  the  Committee  to 
Reelect  the  President,  and  when  I  got  that  information  I  knew  that 
we  were  in  a  situation  that  could  have  all  kinds  of  possibilities.  I 
didn't  know  quite  what  we  had  hold  of,  but  I  was  not  such  a  naive 
jackass  as  to  think  that  the  credibility  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation,  as  an  investigative  agency,  was  not  going  to  be  on  the 
line  in  this  one. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  it  would  be  on  the  line. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  It  would  be  right  on  the  line. 

The  Chairman.  Well  now,  what  kind  of  investigation  was  con- 
ducted? Did  you  direct  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  directed  it  from  the  standpoint  that  I  set  the  tone, 
and  time  and  again  during  the  days  that  ensued  and  during  the 
telephone  conversations  that  followed  I  emphasized  the  aggressive 
nature  of  the  investigation  vv'e  must  conduct.  At  all  times  the  Attorney 
General  concurred  in  that,  a,nd  that  was  the  type  of  investigation 
that  we  conducted.  In  setting  out  the  instructions  to  the  Washington 
field  office,  which  was  the  office  of  origin,  and  in  all  the  other  instruc- 
tions that  went  out,  we  had  the  general  instructions  to  the  effect 
that  this  was  to  be  given  the  highest  priority,  to  be  i^ursued  with 
vigor.  The  special  agent  in  charge  was  to  take  it  under  his  personal 
control,  and  was  to  utilize  whatever  special  agents  were  necessary 
to  promptly  pursue  the  investigative  leads  sent  to  that  particular 
field  division. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  did  you,  or  anyone  else  to  your  knowledge, 
state  who  should  be  checked  on,  who  should  not  be  checked  on? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir,  because  this  was  a  very,  very  fast  developing 
investigation,  and  I  can  state  that  there  were  no  restrictions  or  limi- 
tations placed.  Really,  you  have  the  feeling  sitting  in  my  position 
that  when  you  push  that  button  and  whenever  you  say  give  it  an 


28 

aggressive  and,  in  the  words  of  the  FBI,  full  court  press,  they  are 
going  all  out,  and  that  is  the  way  they  went. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  policy  now,  or  what  would  be  your 
policy,  if  committee  members,  and  committee  members  only,  were 
desirous  of  seeing  that  file? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  have  taken  a  position,  Mr.  Chairman,  from  day  1 — 
and  even  though  I  am  well  aware  of  the  precedential  nature  of  the 
statement  I  am  about  to  make,  and  even  though  I  am  well  aware  it 
could  be  interpreted  to  shatter  precedent,  I  feel  that  this  situation 
is  so  unique  that  it  can  be  distinguished  from  any  other,  so  that  the 
offer  I  am  about  to  make  cannot  be  utilized  later  on  as  an  entrance 
way  into  the  files  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  which  I 
A\dll  continue  to  resist — but  I  am  prepared  to  offer,  and  I  have  been 
prepared  from  the  inception,  that  any  Member  of  the  U.S.  Senate, 
this  committee  or  any  Member  of  the  U.S.  Senate,  who  wishes  to 
examine  the  investigative  file  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation 
in  this  matter  may  do  so,  and  I  will  provide  knowledgeable,  experi- 
enced, special  agents  to  sit  do^vn  with  that  Member  and  respond  to 
any  question  that  Member  has. 

The  Chairman.  There  would  be  present  an  official  of  the  Bureau 
at  all  times? 

Mr.  Gray.  Correct,  sir,  that  is  what  I  am  saying. 

The  Chairman.  That  no  staff  member  would  be  permitted? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  su',  I  would  not  go  beyond  the  offer  that  I  have 
made  because  of  the  nature  of  these  records. 

The  Chairman.  I  certainly  think — now  these  are  the  raw  files? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  are,  sir.  They  are  memorandums,  the  whole  works, 
we  have  nothing  to  hold  back. 

The  Chairman.  I  certainly  tliink  there  should  be  no  leaks,  and  I 
agreed  mth  Mr.  Hoover,  and  certainly  agree  with  you,  that  the  raw 
files  of  the  FBI  should  never  be  publicized.  I  have  seen  too  many. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  certainly  agree  with  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  because  the 
integrity  of  those  files,  I  think,  is  one  of  the  most  sacred  trusts  com- 
mitted to  us  if  we  are  to  carry  out  the  mission  given  to  us  by  the 
Congress  and  the  President. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  McClellan. 

Senator  McClellan.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  Avill  defer  the  questions  I  have  at  this  time.  But  I  want  to  express 
my  appreciation  to  Mr.  Gra}^  for  a  very  frank,  candid  and  informa- 
tive and,  I  think,  a  helpful  statement  that  he  has  made  here  in  the 
opening  of  these  hearings.  On  the  basis  of  that  statement,  of  course, 
he  would  be  entitled  to  confirmation  but  since  there  are  challenges 
and  accusations  which,  if  proven,  might  be  worthy  of  consideration, 
I  will  withhold  any  pledge  of  support  of  his  confirmation.  But  I  do 
want  to  state  that  I  have  noted  \\dth  interest  and  approval  some  of 
the  changes  he  has  made  in  the  brief  time  that  he  has  been  Actmg 
Director  of  the  Bureau,  and  I  commend  him  for  apparently  being 
aggressive  and  mo^dng  in  and  trying  to  examine,  thoroughly  examine, 
the  processes  and  the  traditions  and  procedures  of  this  institution 
and  making  changes  that  do,  in  my  judgment,  bring  about  some 
improvement.  It  will  never  be  perfect,  but  it  is  an  institution  in  our 
Government  that  certainly  serves  every  citizen  in  this  countr3^  But 
there  should  be  no  favoritism  in  it;  there  should  be  a  dedication  to 
the  functions  and  to  the  objectives  of  those  functions  which  it  is 
authorized  to  perform. 


29 

I  will  withhold,  Mr.  Chairman,  any  questions  at  this  time.  I  am 
sure  Mr.  Gray  will  be  back  with  us  before  the  proceedings  are  over 
and  at  that  time  I  will  have,  I  think,  some  questions  based  upon  the 
accusations  against  him. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you,  Senator  McClellan,  and  I  appreciate 
your  position. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Ervin. 

Senator  Ervin.  Mr.  Gray,  as  I  understand,  you  joined  the  personal 
staff  of  Vice  President  Richard  Nixon  in  June  1960? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  Senator  Ervin.  I  retired  from  the  Tj.S.  Navy  on 
June  30,  1960,  and  went  over  to  room  361,  Senate  Office  Building, 
which  was  the  office  of  the  then  Vice  President,  Richard  Nixon. 

Senator  Ervin.  How  long  did  you  remain  a  member  of  the  personal 
staff? 

Mr.  Gray.  From  shortly  after  June  30,  1960,  until  about  January  6, 
1961.  I  am  not  sure  of  that  January  6  date,  but  I  know  I  went  back 
to  Connecticut  to  practice  law  in  early  January.  I  may  have  a  slippage 
on  that  date  but  that  is  pretty  close. 

Senator  Ervin.  It  is  understandable  that  a  person  cannot  remember 
a  specific  date. 

Did  you  continue  in  the  practice  of  law  in  Connecticut  until  you 
became  Executive  Assistant  to  Robert  H.  Finch,  Secretary  of  the 
Department  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare  in  January  1969? 
Mr.  Gray.   Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Senator  Ervin.  And  you  remained  with  him  until  you  became 
Assistant  Attorney  General  of  the  Linited  States  in  charge  of  the 
Civil  Division  and  Director  of  the  Office  of  Alien  Property,  Department 
of  Justice  in  December  1970. 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is  correct.  Senator,  that  I  joined  the  Justice  Depart- 
ment in  December  1970.  I  had  left  HEW  in  January  of  that  year  to 
resume  private  practice. 

Senator  Ervin.  Did  you  remain  in  that  position  until  you  were 
appointed  Acting  Director  of  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  had  two  positions  later  on.  On  February  15  of  1972, 
I  was  nominated  to  be  Deputy  Attorney  General.  I  became  Deputy 
Attorney  General-designate,  and  Attorney  General  Kleindienst  and 
I  began  a  transition  period  regarding  the  duties  of  his  office,  and  I 
was  serving  as  Deputy  Attorney  General-designate  and  as  Assistant 
Attorney  General  in  charge  of  the  Civil  Division  and  Director  of  the 
Office  of  Alien  Property  until  I  was  named  Acting  Director  of  the 
FBI,  sir. 

Senator  Ervin.  Now,  as  I  understand  it,  you  made  16  speeches 
between  July  13,  1972,  and  the  general  election  on  November  7, 
1972,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  numbers  I  am  not  sure,  but  if  j^ou  are  taking  them 
from  the  exhibit,  Senator,  and  counting  off,  why  I  will  accept  your 
count  on  them.  I  have  not  counted  the  number  of  them  m  that 
period. 

Senator  Ervin.  Would  3^ou  mind  just  stating  very  briefly  the 
general  type  of  theme  that  you  emphasized  in  those  speeches? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think,  Senator,  I  would  have  to  say  that  for  the  first 
time  in  m}^  life  as  an  American,  I  had  a  forum  where  I  could  get  up 
and  talk  about  America  and  somebody  would  listen  to  me.  Basically  I 
would  say  the  theme  of  those  speeches  is  that  America  is  a  great  and 

91-331 — ^73 3 


30 

good  land  and  a  land  populated  by  good  people.  Those  speeches  were 
made  with  pride  in  my  heart  for  our  Nation.  They  were  made  along 
constitutional  lines  because  I  am  interested  in  constitutional  history, 
always  have  been,  and  they  were  made  along  lines  of  law  enforce- 
ment. But  I  can  say  to  this  committee  under  oath  that  I  did  not 
design,  write,  plan  or  intend  any  one  of  those  speeches  to  be  political 
speeches  and  as  I  said  in  my  opening  statement,  I  would  submit  to 
the  fair  consideration  and  judgment  of  the  members  of  this  committee 
and  the  Members  of  the  U.S.  Senate  as  to  whether  or  not  I  am  correct. 
You  may  look  at  them  differently^  but  I  am  telling  you  how  I  entered 
upon  them. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  infer  that  the  speeches  3'ou  made  during  this 
time  might  be  designated  as  patriotic  speeches,  extolling  the  virtues 
of  America,  and  speeches  dealing  with  law  enforcement  problems? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Ervin.  Now,  in  the  speech  that  jow  put  in  the  record, 
"Freedom  Under  Law,"  which  j^ou  made  before  the  City  Club  of 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  on  August  11,  1972,  you  stated: 

Our  national  economy  is  bulwarked  by  increased  earnings  and  a  rising  gross 
national  product. 

Production,  incomes,  emploj-ment,  business  spending,  and  consumer  buying 
are  all  showing  sharp  increases. 

The  rate  of  inflation  has  been  slowed. 

We  export  foodstuffs,  medicines,  technology,  and  expertise  to  help  feed,  comfort, 
and  care  for  millions  of  men,  women,  and  children  around  the  world. 

Now  a  person  might  place  an  interpretation  on  that  passage,  in 
view  of  the  particular  issues  that  had  been  joined  between  President 
Nixon  and  Senator  George  McGovern,  that  it  was  calculated  to  help 
President  Nixon  and  hurt  Senator  McGovern,  coidd  he  not? 
•  Mr.  Gray.  I  think  someone  could  draw  that  conclusion  but  I 
think  properly  to  interpret  it  and  place  it  in  perspective,  you  have  to 
see  what  came  before  it.  I  was  addressing  myself  to  those  voices  in 
our  land  who  say  that  American  society  is  sick  and  that  law  is  used  to 
repress  freedom,  and  I  characterized  that  as  demagoguery,  pure  and 
simple.  Then  I  went  on  to  say: 

But  still  the  questions  persist :  Where  are  these  United  States  today,  and  where 
are  we  going?  How  do  we  as  American  citizens  evaluate  ourselves?  Do  we  believe 
in  our  form  of  government?  Does  our  government  care  about  people? 

The  Chairman.  Speak  a  little  louder,  please, 
Mr.  Gray.  I  am  sorry.  [Reading:! 

The  great  American  adv'enture  born  two  centuries  ago  has  grown  stronger 
generation  after  generation. 

We  are  on  the  threshold  of  the  greatest  growth  pattern  in  our  history — 

And  I  went  on  along  those  lines  and  then  I  tried  to  show  the  positive 
exam.ples,  but  certain!}^  I  would  have  to  admit  to  j^ou  that  an  individ- 
ual could  draw  that  other  conclusion. 

But  I  ^^'ill  sav  to  you  again,  Senator  Ervin,  under  oath,  that  this  was 
not  planned,  designed,  or  intended  to  be  a  political  speech  and  I  don't 
think  anybody  who  heard  it  in  Cleveland  interpreted  it  as  a  political 
speech. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  infer  from  your  testimony  that  you  give  the  com- 
mittee your  assurance  that  neither  this  speech  nor  am^  other  speech 
you  delivered  during  that  time  was  intended  to  have  political  conse- 
quences? 


31 

■  Mt.  Gray.  I  gave  that  assurance  to  this  committee,  and  I  gave  thafc 
assurance  to  m3self  then  and  I  do  now.  I  did  not  do  it  and  I  would  noi 
do  it.  I  would  be  in  flagrant  violation  of  the  instructions  from  the 
President  of  the  United  States. 

Senator  Ervin.  On  October  27,  1972,  you  publicly  stated  in  an 
official  release  that  since  around  1950  the  FBI  has  gathered  and  main- 
tained so-called  biographical  data  on  Members  of  Congress  and  candi- 
dates for  Congress.  When  did  you  and  how  did  you  first  learn  of  this 
practice? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator  Ervin,  j^ou  will  recall  that  you  sent  me  a  letter 
on  this  subject,  a  very  thorough  letter.  In  fact  the  questions  were 
designed  to  probe,  and  the}^  did  probe,  and  I  sent  a  response  to  you.  I 
have  not  asked  3^our  permission  but  I  would  now  ask  your  permission 
and  the  permission  of  the  chairman  that  a  copy  of  this  letter  be 
inserted  in  the  record. 

Senator  Ervin.  You  made  a  ver^^  full  response  to  my  request  for 
information  on  this  point.  I  think  it  would  be  illuminating  and  would 
obviate  some  of  ni}^  questions  if  my  letter  to  Air.  Gray  and  his  reply 
to  me  were  inserted  in  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  It  ^^^ll  be  admitted  at  this  point. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you,  sir. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documents  for  the 
record :) 

United  States  Senate, 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
Subcommittee  on  Constitutional  Rights, 

Washington,  D.C.,  Noveviher  3,  1972. 
Hon.  L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 
Acting  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 
Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Mr.  Gray:  As  you  know,  in  the  course  of  the  Subcommittee's  study  of 
government  data  collection,  I  have  sent  a  number  of  lettci-s,  beginning  in  June, 
1970,  asking  the  Justice  Department  and  the  FBI  to  detail  all  of  their  programs 
of  data  collection  respecting  individuals  not  employed  bj'  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, and  certain  programs  invi)lving  those  persons  as  well.  Since  the  responses 
I  have  received  so  far  from  the  Department  and  the  Bureau  were  presumably 
■intended  to  be  complete  replies  to  my  requests,  I  am  concerned  about  the  existence 
of  yet  another  program,  that  respecting  Congressmen  and  Senators,  which  was 
noi  alluded  to  in  past  correspondence  from  the  Department  or  the  Bureau. 

In  any  case,  I  am  extremely  disturbed  by  press  reports  and  a  statement  disr 
tributed  by  your  office  on  October  27  concerning  a  Bureau  program  involving  the 
collection  of  information  on  incumbents  and  candidates  for  federal  office.  Although 
the  reports  are  contradictor}'  and  extremely  sparse  in  detail,  it  appears  that  the 
Bureau  has  regularly  been  compiling  information  on  elected  Representatives  and 
Senators  and  on  their  opponents  for  decades.  The  statement  and  other  documents 
released  from  your  office  states  that  the  practice  in  one  form  or  another  started  as 
far  back  as  1950,  and  presumably  had  two  purposes;  to  assist  the  Bureau  in  its 
Congressional  relations  and  to  aid  in  protecting  the  persons  concerned  against 
"violent  offenses"  against  them. 

These  stated  justifications  require  elaboration.  It  is  my  understanding  that  the 
Bureau,  as  an  agency  within  the  Justice  Department,  relies  on  the  Attorney 
General's  office  for  its  Congressional  relations.  And,  to  my  knowledge,  crimes 
against  federal  legislators  were  not  made  federal  offenses  uncil  1968.  In  any  case, 
it  is  not  immediately  apparent  how  the  program  could  have  assisted  the  Bureau 
in  performing  either  of  these  two  functions. 

Because  of  these  and  other  unresolved  issues  surrounding  the  program,  I  shoul<| 
like  your  response  to  the  following  questions: 

1.  When  was  the  jirogram  begun?  Was  it  instituted  by  formal  or  informal  direo;- 
tive?  By  whose  order  in  the  Bureau?  the  Justice  Department?  elsewhere?  Pleas? 
Bupply  copies  of  the  directives  wliich  ordered  the  initiation  of  this  program.  Please 


32 

supply  copies  of  all  Departmental  and  Bureau  directives,  orders,  regulations, 
"routing  slip  directives,"  and  other  written  instructions  describing  the  program, 
its  purposes  and  the  responsibilities  of  Bureau  agents  in  carrying  it  out,  including 
those  of  January  13,  1972,  August  7,  September  13  and  September  19,  1972. 

2.  List  the  persons  or  categories  of  persons  about  whom  information  was  collect- 
ed under  the  program.  Please  list  separately  those  members  of  the  92nd  Congress 
about  whom  information  was  and  was  not  collected  under  this  program.  List 
separately  those  nonincumbent  candidates  for  federal  office  about  whom  informa- 
tion was  and  was  not  collected.  What  has  been  the  policy  with  respect  to  the  dis- 
posal or  destruction  of  information  collected  upon  persons  after  they  are  no 
longer  Members  of  Congress,  or  candidates  for  office?  Is  the  information  retained 
or  destroyed?  If  the  information  is  retained,  how  many  separate  individuals  had 
files  maintained  on  them  in  the  Bureau  as  of  October  27?  What  was  the  reason  for 
retaining  information  on  persons  no  longer  Members  of  Congress  or  candidates? 

3.  Under  what  authority  was  it  initiated  and  conducted?  Under  what  authority 
has  the  Bureau  been  charged  with  investigating  "violent  offenses"  committed 
against  each  of  the  categories  of  persons  included  under  the  program  before  1968? 
after  1968?  Please  supply  copies  of  Departmental  and  Bureau  regulations  under 
which  it  was  authorized,  together  with  citations  and  copies  of  the  statutory  and 
other  authority  from  which  the  authority  stems. 

4.  Please  describe  in  detail  the  types  of  information  collected,  the  sources  relied 
upon,  and  the  methods  used  for  collecting  the  information.  Include,  of  course, 
both  covert  and  overt  collection  methods.  Please  supply  copies  of  all  instructions 
to  Bureau  employees  governing  the  kinds  of  information  desired,  and  methods  of 
collecting  such  information.  Please  explain  the  terms  "readily  available  sources," 
"reference  publications,"  "local  files"  and  "local  publications,"  and  identify  rep- 
presentative  examples  of  each.  What  information  in  "local  files"  was  used,  and 
how  was  it  collected?  What  kinds  of  biographic  data  was  collected?  What  sources, 
not  readily  available  to  the  public  or  not  published,  were  used.  Please  submit 
copies  of  representative  "dossiers"  or  collections  of  information  on  incumbents 
aiid  candidates  prepared  under  this  program,  suitably  sanitized  to  protect  the 
identity  of  the  individuals  involved,  but  in  sufficient  detail  to  enable  the  Sub- 
committee to  determine  the  scope,  methods,  and  contents  of  the  program. 

5.  Please  describe  the  uses  to  which  the  information  was  put,  both  as  a  matter 
of  regulation  and  as  a  matter  of  tradition  or  practice.  Please  submit  copies  of  all 
regulations,  directives  or  instructions  governing  use  and  access  to  this  information. 
List  also  the  names  or  titles  of  all  individuals  within  the  Bureau,  the  Justice 
Department,  and  other  government  offices,  including  the  White  House,  who  were 
authorized  or  who  in  practice  actually  did  have  access  to  such  information  from 
time  to  time.  List  also  all  persons  by  name  or  title  not  connected  with  the  above 
offices,  who  were  authorized  or  did,  in  fact,  have  access  to  such  information. 

6.  Please  describe  how  this  information  was  stored  or  maintained.  For  example, 
was  it  in  field  offices  or  in  Washington  Headquarters;  in  separate  dossiers,  or  as 
part  of  other  records  such  as  the  "Crime  Records;"  separate  from  the  general 
files  or  as  part  of  them;  in  manual  files  or  in  other  form? 

7.  Please  describe  your  efforts  since  taking  office  to  determine  the  existence  of 
such  a  program.  Did  you  inquire  into  the  possible  existence  of  such  a  program 
prior  to  this  weekend?  What  was  the  result  of  your  inquiry?  To  what  do  you 
attribute  the  discrepancy,  if  any,  between  the  results  of  your  earlier  inquiry  and 
the  information  which  has  just  come  to  light?  Do  you  feel  the  inquiry  or  the  reply 
was  inadequate?  Do  you  plan  anj^  administrative  action  as  a  result?  If  so,  what? 

8.  What  will  become  of  the  program  in  question?  Please  submit  copies  of  aU 
directives  and  instructions  which  will  govern  future  collection  and  retention  of 
information  on  elected  federal  officials  and  other  persons  subject  to  this  program. 
Will  the  existing  files  be  destroj^ed?  Please  state  when  and  in  what  manner. 
Will  any  copies  be  retained,  either  by  the  Bureau  or  by  any  other  officer  or  official 
of  the  Government?  Are  anj^  copies  of  such  files  held  elsewhere  than  in  the  Bureau, 
to  your  knowledge?  Will  subjects  of  these  files  be  informed  of  the  existence  or 
contents  of  files  on  them,  or  be  permitted  to  review  them  prior  to  their  destruction? 

9.  Does  the  Bureau  have  any  program  of  collecting  information  on  federal 
elected  officials,  other  than  the  one  under  inquiry?  If  so,  please  answer  the  above 
questions  for  each  such  program.  Are  similar  programs  in  effect  for  candidates 
of  other  federal  offices,  either  elected  or  appointed?  For  state  offices,  such  as 
governor  or  state  representative,  or  for  local  offices?  If  so,  please  answer  the  above 
questions  for  each  such  program. 

I  am  also  disturbed  about  press  reports  of  requests  from  members  of  the  White 
House  office,   John   Ehrlichman  for  one,   that  the   Bureau   collect  and  supply 


33 

information  to  assist  in  the  presidential  campaign.  These  reports  refer  to  an  order 
issued  in  your  name  on  September  8  and  returnable  on  September  11.  The  report, 
in  Time  magazine  of  Monday,  October  30,  is  enclosed. 

I  would  appreciate  a  detailed  response  to  the  allegations  contained  in  this 
article,  plus  copies  of  the  supposed  order  and  any  similar  ones  issued  during  the 
time  you  have  been  Acting  Director.  I  would  also  appreciate  copies  of  any  other 
requests,  oral  or  written,  from  officials  in  the  Justice  Department,  the  White 
House,  or  elsewhere  in  the  Executive  Branch  for  information  of  a  similar  nature 
or  for  a  similar  purpose,  whether  or  not  the  request  was  compUed  with.  Please 
include  a  description  of  the  Bureau's  response  in  each  case,  together  with  copies 
of  relevant  documents,  directives,  etc. 

I  appreciate  that  the  above  responses  may  take  some  time  to  prepare.  Under 
the  circumstances,  I  know  you  can  understand  the  importance  of  a  prompt  and 
comprehensive  reply  to  this  inquiry.  May  I  request  that  you  respond  as  quickly  as 
possible  with  the  information  you  have  readily  at  your  command,  saving  further 
replies  as  more  information  becomes  available. 

With  kindest  wishes, 
Sincerely, 

Sam  J.  Ervin,  Jr., 

Chairman. 

January  12,  1973. 
Hon.  Sam  J.  Ervin,  Jr., 
U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Senator  Ervin:  I  regret  that  my  illness  followed  by  surgery  has  delayed 
this  response  to  your  letter  of  November  3,  1972.  Also,  I  am  grateful  to  have  this 
opportunity  to  set  forth  the  facts  concerning  the  reports  that  for  some  years  the 
FBI  has  been  collecting  biographical  data  on  Congressional  candidates. 

In  the  release  I  made  concerning  this  particular  program  on  October  27,  1972, 
I  stated  it  was  being  discontinued  because  it  is  not  essential  to  FBI  operations, 
and  "I  believe  it  is  obvious  that  it  can  be  misinterpreted  easily  as  a  program  to 
investigate  Congressmen  and  Congressional  candidates."  A  copy  of  that  release 
is  enclosed  for  your  ready  reference. 

Not  only  was  the  program  misinterpreted,  but  so  was  my  release.  For  example, 
the  pages  from  "Time"  magazine  of  November  6,  1972,  which  you  enclosed 
with  your  letter  contained  the  following  paragraph: 

"Gray  revealed  last  week  that  he  is  discontinuing  a  22-year  FBI  practice  of 
maintaining  biographical  data  on  Congressional  candidates.  He  said  that  the 
information  had  been  used  mainly  to  help  check  out  any  threats  made  against 
them." 

Neither  of  those  sentences  is  accurate.  I  did  not  say  the  FBI  would  stop  main- 
taining biographical  data  on  Congressional  candidates.  Such  a  statement  would 
imply  that  FBI  personnel  could  not  even  maintain  copies  of  the  "Congressional 
Directory,"  copies  of  "Who's  Who,"  or  even  daily  newspapers  which  contain 
biographical  data  on  Congressional  candidates.  Neither  did  I  say  that  the  infor- 
mation had  been  used  mainly  to  check  out  threats  made  against  the  candidates. 
I  stated  the  purpose  of  the  program  was  to  provide  briefing  material  for  FBI 
officials  who  might  desire  it  before  calling  on  newly  elected  Congressmen  and 
Senators,  adding  that  later  it  became  apparent  the  information  could  be  of  use 
in  investigations  dealing  with  oflFenses  against  Members  or  Members-elect  of 
Congress  under  the  provisions  of  Public  Law  91-644. 

A  number  of  the  news  accounts  I  saw  concerning  my  announcement  of  October 
27,  1972,  contained  implications  that  the  FBI  was  compihng  secret  dossiers  on 
Members  of  Congress  and  the  inference  could  easily  be  drawn  from  these  accounts 
that  there  was  some  sinister  motive  involved.  The  FBI's  record,  I  believe,  leaves 
no  doubt  that  it  has  been  in  the  forefront  of  protecting  individual  freedoms  rather 
than  trying  to  encroach  upon  them. 

Your  understanding  that  the  FBI  relies  on  the  Department  of  Justice  for  its 
Congressional  relations  is  accurate  insofar  as  legislative  matters  are  concerned; 
however,  due  to  the  many  inquiries  and  requests  for  information  which  we  receive 
from  Members  of  Congress,  it  has  been  necessary  to  maintain  a  Congressional 
Services  Unit  within  the  FBI  to  respond  to  these  requests  Assaults  on  Federal 
legislators  were  not  made  Fedcx-al  offenses  until  1971;  however.  Federal  legislators, 
like  all  citizens  have  been  covered  for  many  years  under  laws  such  as  those  regard- 
ing kidnapping  and  extortion.  But  let  me  reiterate,  the  information  collected  under 
the  program  in  question  was  gathered  to  assist  FBI  officials  responsible  for 
rendering  services  to  the  Congress. 


34 

_•  Before  responding  to  your  questions,  let  me  describe  for  you  tlie  program  that 
I  ordered  discontinued  and  how  it  operated.  I  beheve  this  will  greatly  enhance 
the  understanding  of  this  matter. 

Around  1950,  the  officials  of  the  FBI  then  responsible  for  dealing  with  the 
Congress  decided  it  would  be  most  beneficial  to  them  if  they  had  some  biographi- 
cal data  on  newly  elected  Members  and  a  knowledge  of  any  prior  contacts  by 
FBI  representatives  with  these  new  Congressmen  and  Senators.  Initially,  they 
orally  requested  FBI  field  office  officials  to  furnish  the  desired  information.  In 
1960,  the  practice  was  begun  of  requesting  such  information  bj'  sending  routing 
islips  to  the  various  FBI  field  offices.  This  has  been  followed  each  election  year 
since  that  time. 

■  The  information  was  gathered  for  our  own  internal  use  and  not  in  response 
to  anjr  regulation  or  statute.  At  first,  information  was  sought  only  on  nonin- 
cumbent  candidates  for  Congress.  In  1960,  the  requests  were  expanded  to  include 
lionincumbent  candidates  for  Governorships,  since  FBI  officials  also  felt  their 
contacts  v.-ith  Governors  could  be  enhanced  by  some  prior  knowledge  of  the 
individual's  background. 

No  investigation  was  condnded  to  secure  this  information,  and  no  investigative 
file  was  opened  either  in  the  field  o_ffices  or  at  FBI  Headquarters.  The  biographical 
information  was  collected  by  individual  Agents  covering  the  home  area  of  the 
candidate.  It  was  gathered  from  local  newspapers,  campaign  brochures,  and 
reference  books  such  as  city  directories  or  books  which  publish  biographical 
information — all  sources  readily  available  to  the  general  public.  This  information 
was  augmented  by  a  summary  of  any  data  already  in  the  files  of  the  field  office. 
This  might  include  correspondence  exchanged  with  the  candidate;  memoranda 
concerning  personal  contacts;  results  of  investigations  involving  the  candidate, 
either  as  a  subject,  a  victim,  a  witness,  or  a  reference;  or  information  voluntarily 
submitted  to  the  FBI. 

The  material  collected  by  the  field  office  was  sent  to  FBI  Headquarters  where 
it  would  be  held  until  the  results  of  the  election  were  known.  If  the  candidate 
was  defeated  in  his  bid  for  office,  all  of  the  material  submitted  by  the  field  office 
would  be  promptl}'  destroyed  and  no  record  of  it  kept.  If  the  candidate  was  suc- 
cessful, a  memorandum  summarizing  the  material  submitted  by  the  field  office 
would  be  prepared.  Into  this  summary  memorandum  also  would  be  incorporated 
a  brief  abstract  of  any  information  already  contained  in  the  files  at  FBI  head- 
quarters. 

Here  again,  the  information  might  include  correspondence  exchanged  with 
the  candidate ;  memoranda  concerning  personal  contacts ;  results  of  investigations 
involving  the  candidate,  either  as  a  subject,  a  victim,  a  witness,  or  a  reference; 
or  information  voluntarily  submitted  to  the  FBI.  The  raw  material  forwarded 
by  the  field  office  would  be  destroyed,  and  only  the  summary  memorandum  would 
be  retained  and  incorporated  into  FBI  files. 

Now  to  your  specific  questions. 

1.  When  was  the  program  begun?  Was  it  instituted  by  formal  or  informal 
directive?  By  whose  order  in  the  Bureau?  the  Justice  Department?  elsewhere? 
Please  supply  copies  of  the  directives  which  ordered  the  initiation  of  this  program. 
Please  supply  copies  of  all  Departmental  and  Bureau  directives,  orders,  regula- 
tions, "routing  slip  directives,"  and  other  written  instructions  describing  the 
program,  its  purposes  and  the  responsibilities  of  Bureau  agents  in  carrying  it 
out,  including  those  of  January  13,  1972,  August  7,  September  13  and  September 
19,  1972. 

,  The  program  was  begun  around  19.30  on  an  informal  basis  and  apparently  on 
oral  instructions  of  a  former  Assistant  to  the  Director.  Copies  of  the  only  written 
instructions  we  are  able  to  locate  concerning  this  program  are  enclosed.  These 
include  the  routing  slips  sent  to  various  FBI  field  offices  this  year  under  dates  of 
January  13,  August  7,  September  13,  and  September  19,  1972,  and  routing  slips 
sent  to  various  FBI  field  offices  in  1970  under  dates  of  July  12  and  October  6, 
1970.  The  latter  two  items  were  retained  only  as  samples,  and  no  copies  of  such 
communications  to  the  field  offices  sent  out  in  prior  years  have  been  retained. 

2.  List  the  persons  or  categories  of  persons  about  whom  im'ormation  was 
collected  under  the  program.  Please  list  separately  those  members  of  the  92nd 
Congress  about  whom  information  was  and  was  not  collected  under  this  program. 
List  separately  those  nonincumbent  candidates  for  federal  office  about  whom 
information  was  and  was  not  collected.  What  has  been  the  policy  with  respect 
to  the  disposal  or  destruction  of  information  collected  upon  persons  after  they 
axe  no  longer  Members  of  Congress,  or  candidates  for  office?  Is  the  information 


35 

retained  or  destroyed?  If  the  information  is  retained,  how  many  separate  indi- 
viduals had  files  maintained  on  them  in  the  Bureau  as  of  October  27?  What  was 
the  reason  for  retaining  informati  on  on  persons  no  longer  Members  of  Congress 
or  candidates? 

Information  was  sought  under  this  program  on  major  nonincumbent  Congres- 
sional candidates.  Biographical  data  was  collected  on  each  Member  of  the  92nd 
Congress  who  had  not  previoufcly  served  in  the  Congress.  No  data  was  collected 
on  incumbents  since  biographical  data  on  them  is  published  in  the  "Congressional 
Directory."  Congressional  candidates  were  the  only  candidates  for  Feaeral  office 
on  whom  biographical  data  was  collected.  If  the  candidate  was  defeated,  no 
information  concerning  him  collected  under  this  program  was  retained,  the  in- 
formation being  promptly  destroyed  as  soon  as  results  of  the  election  were  con- 
firmed. Data  collected  on  successful  candidates  was  summarized  in  a  memorandun^ 
prepared  for  the  information  of  FBI  officials  which  subsequently  became  a  part 
of  the  FBI's  general  files.  Preparation  of  such  memoranda  was  started  in  late 
1954.  The  so-called  "raw  material,"  which  generally  was  in  the  form  of  newspaper 
clippings,  campaign  brochures,  or  excerpts  therefrom,  was  never  made  a  part  of 
FBI  records  and  has  been  destroyed.  Information  collected  in  this  program  on  all 
present  Members  of  Congress  as  well  as  former  Members  goirig  back  about  20 
years  is  maintained  in  FBI  records.  The  FBI  does  not  have  authority  to  destroy 
information  contained  in  its  records,  and  this  a])plies  whether  the  person  is  a 
Member  of  Congress,  a  candidate,  or  a  private  citizen. 

3.  Under  what  authority  was  it  initiated  and  conducted?  Under  what  authority 
has  the  Bureau  been  charged  with  investigating  "violent  offenses"  committed 
against  each  of  the  categories  of  persons  included  under  the  program  before  1968? 
After  1968?  Please  supply  copies  of  Departmental  and  Bureau  regulations  under 
wliich  it  was  authorized,  together  with  citations  and  copies  of  the  statutory  and 
other  authority  from  which  the  authority  stems. 

The  program  was  not  in  response  to  any  statute  or  regulation.  It  was  begun 
informally  on  oral  instructions  from  an  official  of  the  FBI  whose  purpose  was  to 
obtain  biographical  data  to  assist  him  and  other  FBI  personnel  in  carrying  out 
their  responsibihties  in  dealing  with  INlembers  of  Congress.  As  to  the  authority 
under  which  the  FBI  has  been  charged  with  investigating  violent  offenses  com- 
mitted against  persons  included  under  the  program,  I  already  have  referred  to 
Public  Law  91-644  enacted  in  1971.  Also,  as  I  mentioned  earher.  Members  of 
Congress  and  candidates  have  been  covered,  as  have  all  persons,  under  Federal 
laws  dealing  with  such  crimes  as  kidnaping  and  extortion.  As  previously  indicated, 
the  only  written  instructions  we  were  able  to  locate  concerning  this  program  are 
the  routing  slips  sent  out  to  the  field  offices  in  1970  and  1972. 

4.  Please  describe  in  detail  the  types  of  information  collected,  the  sources  relied 
upon,  and  the  methods  used  for  collecting  the  information.  Include,  of  course,  both 
covert  and  overt  collection  methods.  Please  supply  copies  of  all  instructions  to 
Bureau  employees  governing  the  kinds  of  information  desired,  and  methods  of 
collecting  such  information.  Please  explain  the  terms  "readily  available  sources," 
"reference  publications,"  "local  files"  and  "local  pubhcations,"  and  identify  repre- 
sentative examples  of  each.  What  information  in  "local  files"  was  used,  and  how 
was  it  collected?  What  kinds  of  biographic  data  was  collected?  What  sources,  not 
readily  available  to  the  public  or  not  published,  were  used.  Please  submit  copies 
of  representative  "dossiers"  or  collections  of  information  on  incumbents  and 
candidates  prei^ared  under  this  program,  suitably  sanitized  to  protect  the  identity 
of  the  individuals  involved,  but  in  suificient  detail  to  enable  the  Subcommittee 
to  determine  the  scope,  methods,  and  contents  of  the  program. 

The  information  requested  from  the  field  offices  was  biographical  in  nature 
together  with  a  summarization  of  any  data  which  might  already  be  in  the  field 
office  files.  The  biographical  data  came  from  news  articles,  campaign  literature, 
and  standard  reference  publications  such  as  "Who's  Who"  and  Martindale- 
Hubbell.  Frequently,  the  information  was  submitted  merely  by  forwarding  copies 
of  the  news  articles  or  campaign  literature  to  FBI  Headquarters  or  by  copying 
the  pertinent  data  from  the  news  articles  or  the  reference  publications.  No  covert 
collection  methods  were  used.  The  routing  slips  previously  referred  to  contain  all 
the  instructions  sent  to  the  field  offi.ces  regarding  this  program.  "Readily  available 
.sources"  means  those  public  sources  which  are  available  to  any  citizen,  such  as 
newspapers,  magazines,  and  campaign  literature.  "Reference  publications" 
means  such  items  as  "Who's  Who,"  Martindale-Hubbell,  and  city  directories. 
"Local  files"  refers  to  the  files  of  the  FBI  field  offices.  "Local  publications"  means 
newspapers  and  other  periodicals  published  in  the  local  area.  Information  la 


36 

"local  files"  could  be  the  results  of  prior  investigations  concerning  the  candidate 
in  which  he  may  have  been  a  subject  of  the  investigation,  the  victim  of  some  crime 
being  investigated,  or  a  witness  or  reference  interviewed.  The  information  could 
concern  previous  contacts  between  the  candidate  and  FBI  representatives,  or  it 
could  be  information  volunteered  to  the  FBI.  The  kind  of  biographical  data  col- 
lected is  the  same  type  as  that  which  is  published  about  Members  of  Congress 
in  the  "Congressional  Directory,"  and  I  know  of  no  sources,  except  for  local  and 
Headquarters  FBI  files,  not  readily  available  to  the  general  public  which  were 
used  in  the  collection  of  this  data.  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  furnish  copies  of  the 
summary  memoranda  prepared  from  the  material  collected  under  this  program; 
however,  I  can  advise  you  that  I  am  giving  serious  consideration  and  study  to  the 
ultimate  disposition  of  the  summary  memoranda  prepared  as  the  end  product  of 
this  Congressional  Relations  program. 

5.  Please  describe  the  uses  to  which  the  information  was  put,  both  as  a  matter 
of  regulation  and  as  a  matter  of  tradition  or  practice.  Please  submit  copies  of  all 
regulations,  directives  or  instructions  governing  use  and  access  to  this  information. 
List  also  the  names  or  titles  of  all  individuals  within  the  Bureau,  the  Justice 
Department,  and  other  government  offices,  including  the  White  House,  who  were 
authorized  or  who  in  practice  actually  did  have  access  to  such  information  from 
time  to  time.  List  also  all  persons  by  name  or  title  not  connected  with  the  above 
offices,  who  were  authorized  or  did,  in  fact,  have  access  to  such  information. 

As  indicated,  the  primary  use  of  the  information  gathered  under  this  program 
was  to  assist  FBI  personnel  responsible  for  contacts  with  the  Congress.  It  was 
helpful  to  them  to  know  what,  if  any,  prior  experience  the  newly  elected  Members 
might  have  had  concerning  law  enforcement  activities  or  of  any  prior  contacts 
they  may  have  had  with  FBI  personnel.  Likewise,  it  was  important  to  know  if  the 
new  Member  had  been  the  subject  of  any  prior  FBI  investigation,  such  as  an  ap- 
plicant investigation,  or  had  been  the  victim  of  any  crime  investigated  by  the 
FBI.  There  are  no  special  regulations  or  instructions  governing  the  use  of  and 
access  to  this  information.  All  FBI  personnel  have  access  to  information  in  the 
files  of  the  FBI  if  they  need  the  information  in  connection  with  their  official 
functions.  No  information  in  FBI  files  is  available  to  anyone  outside  the  FBI 
unless  through  official  dissemination  to  another  Executive  Branch  agency  as  part 
of  the  results  of  an  investigation  or  in  answer  to  an  official  inquiry  regarding  a 
specific  individual.  Our  dissemination  policy  is  the  same  with  respect  to  all  per- 
sons whether  they  be  public  officials  or  private  citizens — the  information  is  dis- 
seminated outside  the  FBI  only  in  connection  with  official  investigations  or  in 
response  to  official  inquiries.  Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  identify  by  name  or 
title  all  of  the  individuals  who  might  have  access  to  such  information. 

6.  Please  describe  how  this  information  was  stored  or  maintained.  For  example, 
was  it  in  field  offices  or  in  Washington  Headquarters;  in  separate  dossiers,  or  as 
part  of  other  records  such  as  the  "Crime  Records;"  separate  from  the  general 
files  or  as  part  of  them;  in  manual  files  or  in  other  form? 

The  information  gathered  under  the  program  in  question  was  recorded  in  a  single 
summary  memorandum  which  was  incorporated  into  the  general  records  of  the 
FBI  at  FBI  Headquarters. 

7.  Please  describe  your  efforts  since  taking  office  to  determine  the  existence  of 
such  a  program.  Did  you  inquire  into  the  possible  existence  of  such  a  program 
prior  to  this  weekend?  What  was  the  result  of  your  inquiry?  To  what  do  you 
attribute  the  discrepancy,  if  an.y,  between  the  results  of  your  earlier  inquirj^  and 
the  information  which  has  just  come  to  light?  Do  you  feel  the  inquiry  or  the  reply 
was  inadequate?  Do  you  plan  any  administrative  action  as  a  result?  If  so,  what? 

I  must  assume  that  this  question  is  directed  to  the  statement  made  by  me  on 
numerous  occasions  to  the  effect  that  I  had  not  located  any  secret  files  or  political 
dossiers  within  the  files  of  the  FBI.  I  did  not  specifically  ask  the  Assistant  Director 
of  the  Crime  Records  Division  if  his  Division  maintained  .secret  files  or  political 
dossiers,  nor  did  I  ever  ask  anyone  in  the  FBI  if  we  maintained  files  on  Con- 
gressional or  other  political  candidates.  My  inquiries  were  directed  solely  to  the 
maintenance  of  secret  files  or  political  dossiers  and  these  were  made  to  all  mem- 
bers of  the  Executives  Conference  of  the  FBI  on  several  occasions  when  the  sub- 
ject came  up  for  discussion  and  to  the  senior  officials  of  the  Files  and  Communi- 
cations Division  of  the  FBI  on  numerous  occasions. 

No  one  of  us  in  the  FBI  ever  considered  that  the  summary  memorandum,  the 
product  of  the  program  I  terminated  on  October  27,  1972,  constituted  a  secret 
file  or  a  political  dossier.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  believe  the  existence  of  this 
program  was  not  reported  to  me  in  response  to  my  inquiries.  I  have  ordered  a 
thorough  inquiry  into  this  matter,  and  I  am  now  in  the  process  of  completing 
my  review  of  the  entire  matter. 


37 

8.  What  will  become  of  the  program  in  question?  Please  submit  copies  of  all 
directives  and  instructions  which  will  govern  future  collection  and  retention  of 
information  on  elected  federal  officials  and  other  persons  subject  to  this  program. 
Will  th^  existing  files  be  destroyed?  Please  state  when  and  in  what  manner.  Will 
any  copies  be  retained,  either  by  the  Bureau  or  by  any  other  officer  or  official  of 
the  Government?  Are  any  copies  of  such  files  held  elsewhere  than  in  the  Bureau, 
to  your  knowledge?  Will  subjects  of  these  files  be  informed  of  the  existence  or 
contents  of  files  on  them,  or  be  permitted  to  review  them  prior  to  their 
destruction? 

The  program  was  discontinued  on  October  27,  1972,  and  all  information  which 
had  been  collected  under  it  this  year  was  promptly  destroyed.  My  instructions  in 
this  regard  were  issued  orall^y,  not  in  writing.  I  am  giving  serious  consideration 
and  stud}'  to  the  ultimate  disposition  of  the  summary  memoranda  prepared  based 
on  the  information  collected  under  this  program. 

9.  Does  the  Bureau  have  any  program  of  collecting  information  on  federal 
elected  officials,  other  than  the  one  under  inquiry?  If  so,  please  answer  the 
above  questions  for  each  such  program.  Are  similar  programs  in  effect  for 
candidates  of  other  federal  offices,  either  elected  or  appointed?  For  state  offices, 
such  as  governor  or  state  representative,  or  for  local  offices?  If  so,  please 
answer  the  above  questions  for  each  such  program. 

The  FBI  has  no  program  to  collect  information  on  Federal  elected  or  appointed 
officials  and  this  particular  program  has  been  terminated.  Where  there  is  a 
requirement  for  an  official  investigation,  the  FBI  will  collect  such  information, 
such  as  for  a  Presidential  appointment.  As  previously  indicated,  the  Congressional 
program  was  expanded  in  1960  to  include  nonincumbent  candidates  for  Governor; 
however,  this  Congressional  program  has  been  terminated. 

In  response  to  the  allegations  in  the  "Time"  Magazine  article  you  referred  to 
in  your  letter,  I  enclose  for  your  information  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  setting  forth 
the  facts  and  circumstances  as  we  know  them. 
Sincerely  yours, 

L.  Patrick  Gray,  III, 

Adijig  Director. 


U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  B.C.,  October  27,  1972. 
For  immediate  release. 

"The  FBI  is  not  investigating  and  has  not  investigated  Members  of  Congress 
or  Congressional  candidates,"  Acting  FBI  Director  L.  Patrick  Gray,  III,  de- 
clared today.  "The  only  exceptions  have  been  where  a  Member  was  alleged  to 
have  violated  a  Federal  law  or  where  the  Member  is  being  considered  for  a  top- 
level  Government  appointment. 

"It  has  just  come  to  my  attention,"  he  said,  "that  since  1950  personnel  at  FBI 
Headquarters  responsible  for  dealing  with  Congress  have,  as  a  matter  of  routine 
practice,  gathered  biographical  data  on  major  candidates  for  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  the  Senate  from  newspapers,  magazines,  campaign  literature,  and 
various  reference  publications.  FBI  Field  Offices  from  time  to  time  have  been 
requested,  by  means  of  a  routing  slip  directive,  to  assist  bj^  providing  information 
that  was  readily  available  from  local  files  and  local  publications. 

"Initially,  the  purpose  of  this  was  to  provide  briefing  material  for  FBI  officials 
who  might  desire  it  before  making  a  call  on  a  newly  elected  Congressman  or 
Senator.  In  short,  the  routine  was  a  part  of  the  Congressional  relations  program 
of  the  FBI.  Later,  following  the  enactment  of  Public  Law  91-644  dealing  in  part 
with  violent  offenses  against  Members  of  Congress  and  Members  of  Congress- 
Elect,  it  became  apparent  that  such  information  would  be  of  immediate  use  in 
following  investigative  leads  arising  in  the  event  such  an  offense  were  to  be 
committed  against  a  Member  or  a  Member-Elect  of  Congress. 

"I  became  aware  of  this  program,"  Mr.  Gray  continued,  "as  a  result  of  inquiries 
alleging  that  an  FBI  Agent  in  Lorain  County,  Ohio,  had  been  making  inquiries 
about  the  background  of  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  in  Ohio's  13th 
District.  This  Agent's  inquiries  were  not  authorized,  and  were  in  violation  of 
specific  instructions  that  the  gathering  of  information  on  Congressional  candi- 
dates is  to  be  made  from  readily  available  published  sources  only,  and  not  through 
any  outside  inquiries.  The  FBI  is  conducting  an  internal  administrative  investi- 
gation of  this  Agent's  actions  to  determine  why  this  instruction  was  not  followed. 


38 

"At  the  same  time,"  Mr.  Gray  continued,  "because  the  program  of  gathering, 
briefing  material  on  Congressmen  and  Congressional  candidates  has  been  brought 
to  my  attention  through  this  incident,  I  have  given  consideration  to  the  need  for 
such  a  program.  Such  a  program  is  not  essential  to  FBI  operations,  and  I  believe 
it  is  obvious  that  it  can  be  misinterpreted  easil.v  as  a  program  to  investigate 
Congressmen  and  Congressional  candidates.  Therefore,  I  have  decided  to  termi- 
nate this  program  as  of  today." 

FBI  Routing  Slips 

January  13,   1972. 
Re  Coming  elections. 

Primaries  will  be  held  this  year  in  each  state  to  nominate  candidates  for  Congress 
(House  and  Senate)  and  some  Governors.  Pertinent  background  information 
and  data  from  your  files  on  major  non-incumbent  candidates  in  your  district 
should  be  forwarded  informally  by  routing  slip,  not  letter,  to  Crime  Records 
as  soon  as  they  are  nominated.  Under  no  circumstances  should  you  make  outside 
inquiries  such  as  checks  of  credit  bureaus  or  newspaper  morgues.  Public  source 
material  readily  available  to  .you  and  data  from  your  files  will  suffice.  Continue 
to  furnish  pertinent  data  as  it  develops  between  the  primary  and  general  election. 
Also  be  alert  for  any  special  elections  to  fill  Congressional  vacancies  and  submit 
pertinent  data  on  the  major  candidates  before  the  election  date.  These  matters 
must  always  be  handled  with  extreme  discretion  to  avoid  the  implication  that  we 
are  checking  on  candidates. 

August  7,   1972. 
Re  Bu  r/s  January  13,  1972:  Coming  elections. 

By  r/s  of  1-13-72  you  were  requested  to  furnish  pertinent  background  informa- 
tion from  public  sources  as  well  as  data  from  your  files  regarding  nonincumbent 
candidates  for  Congress.  It  has  now  been  over  a  month  since  the  primary  in  your 
state  was  held,  and  we  have  not  received  the  requested  information.  Please 
submit  this  information  within  three  weeks  from  the  date  of  this  r/s.  Make  no 
outside  inquiries  such  as  checks  of  credit  bureaus  or  newspaper  morgues  concern- 
ing this  matter. 

September  13,  1972. 
Re  Coming  elections. 

Attached  is  a  copy  of  the  routing  slip  sent  your  office  regarding  nonincumbent 
candidates.  Information  has  not  been  received  from  5"our  office  although  it  is 
noted  the  primary  in  your  state  has  been  held.  Please  submit  the  necessary 
information  to  reach  Crime  Records  Division  by  10-1-72. 

September  19,   1972. 
Re  Coming  elections. 

Attached  is  a  copy  of  the  routing  slip  sent  your  office  regarding  nonincumbent 
candidates.  It  is  noted  the  primary  in  your  state  has  been  held.  Please  submit  the 
necessary  information  to  reach  Crime  Records  Division  by  10-9-72. 

August  12,   1970. 
Re  National  Elections  Crime  Research  Section. 

Primary  elections  have  been  or  are  being  conducted  in  each  State  to  choose 
candidates  for  the  forthcoming  November  elections  for  all  House  members  and 
for  certain  Senators  and  Governors. 

You  are  requested  to  furnish  background  data  and  any  information  in  your 
files  re  major  nonincumbent  candidates  for  Senate,  House  and/or  Governor  in 
those  districts  covered  by  j'our  office.  This  matter  should,  of  course,  be  handled 
extremel.y  discreetly  and  the  information  should  be  submitted  to  the  Bureau  on 
a  strictly  informal  basis  as  soon  as  the  pertinent  data  is  available. 

October  6,   1970. 

Re  National  Elections  Crime  Research  Section,  re  my  routing  slip  Aug.  12,  1970. 
Inasmuch  as  all  primary  elections  have  now  been  held,  it  is  requested  that  you 
expedite  transmittal  of  background  data  and  any  information  in  your  files  regard- 
ing major  nonincumbent  candidates  for  Senate,  House  and/or  Governor  in  those 
districts  covered  bj^  your  Office.  Bear  in  m-ind  that  this  matter  should,  of  course, 
be  handled  extremely  discreetly  and  that  the  information  should  be  submitted  to 
the  Bureau  on  a  strictly  informal  basis  as  soon  as  possible. 


39 

Memo 

January  12,  1973. 
Re  Information  for  Campaign  Trips :  Events  and  Issues. 

Under  date  of  September  1,  1972,  Geoff  Shepard  of  the  White  House  staff, 
prepared  a  memorandum  for  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  on  the  subject  of 
"Information  for  Campaign  Trips:  Events  and  Issues."  This  requested  two 
categories  of  information:  (1)  identification  of  the  substantive  issue  problem  areas 
in  the  criminal  justice  field;  and  (2)  a  list  of  events  relating  to  the  criminal  justice 
area  that  would  be  good  for  John  Ehrlichman  to  consider  doing.  The  memo- 
randum indicated  an  interest  in  this  information  in  15  specified  states.  It  requested 
the  information  by  close  of  business  on  September  7,  1972. 

Under  date  of  September  8,  1972,  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  forwarded  to 
Acting  FBI  Director  L.  Patrick  Gray,  III,  a  copy  of  the  White  House  memo- 
randum requesting  an  evaluation  of  the  questions.  This  noted  that  the  White 
House  deadline  already  was  passed  and  asked  for  a  response  as  quickly  as  possible. 
(A  copy  of  this  memorandum  and  a  copy  of  the  White  House  memorandum  are 
attached.) 

The  memorandum  from  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  was  received  in  the 
oflfice  of  the  Acting  Director  of  the  FBI  at  10:32  a.m.,  on  September  8,  1972. 
Mr.  Gray  was  out  of  Washington  at  the  time  and  the  matter  was  handled  by 
his  Executive  Assistant,  David  D.  Kinley.  He  forwarded  it  to  the  Assistant 
Director  of  the  Crime  Research  Division,  Thomas  E.  Bishop.  Mr.  Bishop  dis- 
cussed the  matter  with  Acting  Associate  Director  W.  Mark  Felt,  and  thereafter 
Mr.  Bishop  had  one  of  his  subordinates  prepare  a  teletype  to  21  FBI  Field  Offices 
which  he  approved  to  be  sent  late  on  September  8,  1972,  setting  a  deadline  of  the 
opening  of  business  on  September  11,  1972.  This  teletype  set  out  virtually  verbatim 
the  text  of  the  request  in  the  White  House  memorandum  of  September  1,  1972. 

The  material  received  from  the  Field  Offices  in  response  to  the  teletype  was 
summarized  into  a  memorandum  on  September  11,  1972,  which  was  approved  by 
Messrs  Bishop,  Felt  and  Kinley  and  was  then  delivered  to  the  office  of  the  Deputy 
Attorney  General  late  on  the  same  date.  The  information  supphed  by  the  Field 
Offices  required  no  investigation  to  obtain  it — it  was  information  readily  available 
within  the  Field  Offices  pertaining  to  forthcoming  meetings  and  conferences 
on  matters  of  similar  interest  in  law  enforcement  and  criminal  justice  fields. 

Mr.  Gray  was  out  of  Washington  during  the  entire  period  of  September  8  to 
11,  1972,  returning  to  the  city  after  7  p.m.,  on  September  11,  1972.  His  first 
knowledge  of  this  matter  was  on  the  late  afternoon  of  September  12,  1972. 

Personnel  involved  in  the  handling  of  this  project  have  stated  they  did  not 
question  the  propriety  in  complying  with  the  request  since  it  dealt  with  information 
of  a  broad  nature  concerning  police  and  the  criminal  justice  system,  since  it  had 
been  requested  by  the  White  House,  and  since  the  request  had  come  through  the 
offices  of  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  and  the  Acting  Director. 


U.S.  Government, 

September  8,  1972. 
To:  L.  Patrick  Gray,  Director,  FBI. 
From:  Ralph  E.  Erickson,  Deputy  Attornej'  General. 

Subject:  Information  for  Campaign  Trips:  Events  and  Issues  (Attached.  White 
House  Memorandum.) 

Would  you  undertake  to  evaluate  the  questions  asked  of  us  by  Jolm  Ehrlichman 
in  the  attached  memorandum  and  give  me  the  benefit  of  your  response. 

Although  we  are  beyond  the  due  date  of  this  memorandum  already,  jDlease  make 
your  response  as  quickly  as  possible. 

The  White  House, 
Washington,  September  1,  1972. 

Memorandum  for:  The  Deputy  Attorney  General. 
Subject:  Information  for  campaign  trips:  Events  and  issues. 

In  order  for  John  Ehrlichman  to  give  the  President  maximum  support  during 
campaign  trips  over  the  next  several  weeks,  the  following  information  is  required 
for  each  of  the  states  listed  at  Tab  A. 

(1)  Identification  of  the  substantive  issue  problem  areas  in  the  criminal  justice 
field  for  that  particular  state.  Please  limit  yourself  to  problems  of  sufficient 
magnitude  that  the  President  or  John  Ehrlichman  might  be  expected  to  be  aware 
of  them.  Brevitj^  is  the  key,  and  often  all  that  is  necessary  is  to  flag  a  sensitive 
problem  so  it  can  be  avoided  or  more  extensive  preparation  can  be  undertaken 
should  we  choose  to  speak  about  it. 


40 

(2)  A  list  of  events  relating  to  the  criminal  justice  area  that  would  be  good  for 
John  Ehrlichman  to  consider  doing.  For  each  suggested  event,  the  following  items 
should  be  indicated: 

(A)  Purpose  of  the  event. 

(B)  The  nature  of  the  group  or  institution  involved. 

(C)  The  content  of  the  event. 

(D)  Names  of  specific  people  who  can  be  contacted  for  the  purpose  of  setting  it 
up  (together  with  titles,  addresses,  telephone  numbers,  etc.). 

(E)  All  trade-off  factors  to  be  considered  in  scheduling  the  event. 

I  am  receiving  separate  materials  from  both  LEAA  and  DALE,  so  you  should 
omit  any  consideration  of  problems  in  the  area  of  Federal  aid  or  drugs.  I  would 
expect  your  hst  of  problems  to  be  fairly  brief,  but  there  are  certainly  criminal 
justice  problems  (such  as  the  Fort  Worth  Five)  that  we  should  flag  for  the 
President. 

I  know  this  is  rushing  you,  but  I  need  the  information  by  close  of  business, 
Thursday,  September  7,  1972. 

Thanks,  Ralph. 

Geoff  Shepard. 

California  (San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles) . 

Connecticut. 

Florida. 

Georgia  (Atlanta). 

Illinois  (Chicago). 

Massachusetts. 

Michigan. 

Missouri  (Kansas  City). 

New  Jersey. 

New  York  City. 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania  (Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh). 

South  Dakota. 

Tennessee. 

Texas  (San  Antonio). 

Mr.  Gray.  I  first  learned  of  the  program  to  collect  biographical 
information  on  congressional  candidates  on  October  26,  1972,  when 
we  learned  at  FBI  Headquarters  that  an  agent  in  Elyria,  Ohio, 
contrary  to  specific  instructions,  had  contacted  a  newspaper  in  that 
area  requesting  information  on  a  candidate.  I  promptly  obtained  the 
complete  facts  concerning  this  program  and  immediately  ordered 
that  it  be  discontinued.  A  press  release  concerning  this  matter  was 
made  the  following  day,  October  27,  1972,  and  this  is  included  with 
the  material  enclosed  \\ith  my  letter  to  you.  Senator  Ervin,  of  January 
12,  1973,  which  has  been  submitted  for  the  record. 

Concerning  the  request  sent  to  21  FBI  field  offices  in  September 
1972,  seeking  information  of  possible  interest  to  the  White  House  in 
the  law  enforcement  and  criminal  justice  field,  also  discussed  in  my 
letter  to  you  of  January  12,  1973,  Senator,  I  first  learned  of  that  in 
a  staff  meeting.  I  believe  it  was  5  o'clock  on  Tuesday,  I  would  have  to 
remember  the  date  that  I  set  it  forth,  I  have  the  letter  to  you,  Senator, 
and  I  can  get  it  from  there  rather  than  picking  a  wTong  date. 

The  important  point  I  think 

Senator  Ervin.  I  believe  3^ou  wrote  the  letter  on  January  12,  1973. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  but  when  I  learned  of  it  was  the  Tuesday  following 
my  return  from  a  week  long  trip.  I  had  gone  the  preceding  week  to 
Butte  and  Anchorage,  was  out  on  travel  all  that  week.  I  want  to  be 
very  sure  about  these  answers,  that  is  why  I  want  to  take  the  time.  I 
have  got  the  information  here  and  just  need  to  refresh  my  recollection. 


41 

I  went  on  a  trip  to  Anchorage,  Alaska,  to  visit  the  field  office  there, 
to  visit  the  Seattle  field  office,  the  Portland  field  office,  speak  in 
Spokane,  Wash.,  to  the  Washington  State  Bar  Association,  visit  the 
field  office  at  Butte,  Mont.,  and  the  dates  of  all  those  were  around  the 
11th,  I  think,  of  September,  and  I  will  pin  it  down  here.  Yes,  and  I 
came  back,  it  was  on  the  12th  of  September  in  a  meeting  with  my 
personal  staff  in  the  afternoon  that  I  learned  about  this.  This  was  the 
first  indication  that  I  had  of  it. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  think  it  might  be  helpful  to  the  committee  if  you 
could  indicate  in  an  extremely  brief  fashion  the  nature  of  the  informa- 
tion in  the  dossiers,  or  whatever  you  chose  to  call  them,  relating  to 
Congressmen  and  candidates  for  Congress  which  had  been  collected  by 
the  FBI  vmder  this  practice. 

Mr.  Gray.  Right.  The  idea  was  started,  conceived  in  1950,  was 
pursued  actively  from  1954  on,  and  the  idea  was  generated  by  those 
who  were  then  in  charge  of  meeting  with  Members  of  Congress  and 
handling  requests  from  Members  of  Congress  and  providing  informa- 
tion to  Alembers  of  Congress. 

The  concept  of  the  operation  was  to  go  into  a  district,  acquire  the 
names  of  the  individuals  who  were  candidates,  and  acquire  public 
source  information  regarding  those  individuals  as  well  as  any  informa- 
tion in  the  files  of  the  FBI  at  the  division  level,  regarding  any  contacts 
that  these  individuals  might  have  had  with  the  FBI — to  bundle  all 
this  public  source  material  together,  send  it  back  to  FBI  headquarters 
where  it  was  distilled  and  a  summary  memorandum  prepared  if  th^ 
individual  was  elected.  No  summary  memorandum  was  prepared  if  the 
individual  was  not  elected,  and  all  public  source  material  acquired  was 
destroyed.  So  that  all  3'ou  had,  if  you  had  an  incumbent,  or  rather  a 
candidate  running  in  a  given  district,  we  would  gather  that  material 
on  him.  Then  if  this  candidate  was  elected,  public  source  material  on 
him  would  be  distilled  into  a  summary  memorandum  and  that  would 
be  sheet  No.  1  or  sheets  No.  1  through  however  long  the  memorandum 
was  regarding  this  individual.  Our  people  who  were  in  what  was  then 
called  the  Crime  Records  Division  would  utilize  that  in  making 
their  contacts  with,  the  Members. 

Senator  Ervin.  What  was  done  with  the  data  that  was  related  to 
the  candidates  who  lost? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  were  destroyed,  Senator. 

Senator  Ervin.  Destroyed. 

Did  the  summary  which  was  made  from  these  files  indicate  whether 
there  had  been  investigations  into  the  personal  conduct  or  the  political 
views  of  the  candidates  or  Members? 

Mr.  Gray.  No.  The  only  information  we  had  was  the  public  source 
information  that  we  acquired  or  any  information  that  we  might  have 
on  the  indi\4dual  that  was  contained  in  the  FBI  files  at  the  division 
level  or  at  the  headquarters  level.  Now,  if  that  individual  as  a  private 
citizen  had  been  the  subject  of  a  FBI  investigation;  yes,  sir,  that  would 
be  contained  in  the  summary  memorandum. 

Senator  Ervin.  But,  if  he  had  not  been  the  subject  of  a  prior 
investigation  it  would  not  be? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir,  and  we  did  not  conduct  any  investigation  of 
these  individuals  who  were  candidates  in  a  given  district. 

Senator  Ervin.  Now,  of  course,  this  practice  had  originated  long 
before  you  became  Director? 


42 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  correct,  Senator. 

Senator  Ervin.  And  your  investigation  of  the  history  of  the  practice 
satisfied  you  that  this  information  was  gathered  for  the  benefit  of 
those  FBI  employees  who  may  have  a  reason  to  contact  these  Con- 
gressmen for  the  FBI  in  the  dealings  between  Congress  and  the  FBI. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  Right  here  at  the  national  level  men  like 
Inspector  Dave  Bowers,  who  conduct  this  kind  of  relationship  with 
the  Congress,  who  really — really  it  is  a  congressional  services  unit 
and  that  is  what  I  have  changed  it  to  in  the  reorganization.  Those  men 
are  doing  that  now  and  are  in  what  we  call  today  the  congressional 
services  unit. 

Senator  Ervin.  As  I  understand  from  your  letter  and  other  public 
statements  made  by  you,  tliis  practice  has  been  discontinued  and  the 
FBI  relies  upon  such  tilings  as  the  "Congressional  Quarterly"  and 
other  public  information  for  any  information  of  this  character? 

Mr.  Gray.  Right.  I  shut  it  down  over  the  recommendations  of  the 
people  in  the  Bureau  that  it  be  continued  and  I  said  absolutely  not,  it 
will  not  be  continued.  It  is  too  readily  subject  to  misinterpretation 
and  we  don't  need  it. 

Senator  Ervin.  As  you  know,  the  Senate  has  imposed  upon  me 
and  other  members  of  the  Senate  Select  Committee  on  Presidential 
Campaign  Activities  a  very  solemn  and  serious  responsibility  in  con- 
nection with  the  so-called  Watergate  affair  and  various  ramifications 
connected  with  it.  I  would  have  been  happy  if  I  could  have  asked 
you  some  of  these  questions  1  am  now  going  to  ask  you  after  that 
committee  has  discharged  those  responsibilities.  However,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  your  nomination  has  been  submitted  now,  I  am  compelled 
in  the  nature  of  things  to  ask  you  these  questions. 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator  Ervin,  I  understand  that.  I  would  hope,  of 
course,  we  would  not  get  into  the  Watergate  substantively,  but  I  can 
readily  see  that  the  members  of  this  committee  have  got  to  be  assured 
that  I  went  at  this  with  the  FBI's  standard  procedure,  with  its  accus- 
tomed vigor,  and  I  will  do  my  very  best  to  respond  to  any  of  your 
questions.  I  have  absolutely  nothing  to  hold  back  in  connection 
with  that  and  if  we  are  going  to  take  two  bites  of  that  apple  why  so 
be  it,  let's  get  on  with  it. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  have  received  by  telephone  the  assurance  of 
the  Attorney  General  that  he  and  the  Department  of  Justice  will 
cooperate  with  the  committee  in  the  effort  of  the  committee  to  investi- 
gate these  matters.  I  take  it  from  your  statement  a  moment  ago  that 
you  are  also  prepared  to  cooperate  with  the  committee. 

Mr.  Gray.  Absolutely,  sir.  Our  raw  data,  our  memoranda,  what- 
ever jthis  committee  wants,  whatever  the  Ervin  Select  Committee 
wants,  is  available  to  the  members. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  am  frank  to  state  that  I  am  just  a  little  bit 
troubled  by  the  limitation  that  you  announced,  that  only  members  of 
the  committee,  that  is  only  Senators,  shall  be  allowed  to  inspect  these 
raw  fdes,  because  I  have  got  10.000  other  jobs  besides  that  of  investi- 
gating Watergate  and  I  think  that  is  true  of  all  the  other  members  of 
the  committee. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  understand  that,  Senator. 

Senator  Ervin.  The  Senate  resolution  authorizing  and  requiring 
this  investigation  specifies  that  the  only  people  who  can  have  access 


43 

to  these  files  would  be  either  the  members  of  the  committee  or  the 
chief  counsel  to  the  committee  or  the  counsel  for  the  minority  or  other 
members  of  the  staff  of  the  committee  who  might  be  designated  by 
the  chairman  and  the  ranking  minority  member  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Gray.  You  are  talkmg  about  your  Er\dn  Select  Committee? 

Senator  Ervin.  Yes, 

Mr.  Gray.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  that.  We  will  comply  with  the 
resolution  of  the  Senate.  But  I  am  talldng  about  the  procedure  now, 
because  Senators  here  who  are  members  of  this  committee  ob^dously 
are  going  to  want  to  know  how  Gray  handled  the  Watergate  before 
the}'^  are  going  to  confirm  this  bloke  for  my  position  and  I  am  prepared 
to  tell  you. 

Senator  Ervin.  In  other  words,  I  would  think  that  the  minority 
ranking  member,  who  is  now  elected  vice  chairman  of  the  committee, 
Senator  Baker  of  Tennessee,  would  not  want  anybody  but  the  m.ost 
reputable  person  to  look  at  the  files  but  we  would  like  to  have  a 
member  of  the  staff  selected  by  both  of  us  to  do  this  work  instead  of 
doing  it  in  person.  ;  , 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  as  far  as  your  committee  is  concerned,  we  in 
the  FBI  will  abide  by  the  joint  resolution,  I  have  some  people  I  have 
to  take  some  orders  from,  too.  On  the  one  hand,  there  were  some  who 
criticized  Mr.  Hoover  for  being  a  feudal  baron  and  now  ma3^be  it 
seems  I  sense  a  little  criticism  of  me  because  I  am  taking  orders,  but 
I  am  trying  to  comply.  I  am  saying  to  tliis  committee  that  my  posi- 
tion has  been  from  the  beginning  that  we  have  nothing  to  hide  and 
I  am  going  to  state  it  on  the  public  record  because.  I  have  stated  it 
on  the  private  record.  ■ 

Senator  Ervin.  Yes,  that  is  the  reason  that  I  am  concerned  that 
Senators  not  be  the  only  ones  who  will  have  to  do  this  work  and  so 
I  understand .  • 

Mr.  Gray.  I  meant,  Senator  Ervin,  for  tliis  committee  I  am  willing 
to  send  over  the  materials  and  I  am  willing  to  send,  oyjer  two  agents 
and  a  Senator  can  sit  down  with  them  and  question  them  any  way 
they  want. 

V  Senator  Ervin.  And  I  might  state  that  as  far  as  I  am  concerned 
and  as  far  as  I  can  control  the  matter,  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  the 
committee  to  take  and  put  any  raw  files  or  an^^tliing  of  that  character 
in  evidence.  We  just  don't  want  to  have  to  put  the  taxpayers  to  the 
expense  of  setting  up  a  little  FBI  of  our  own  to  conduct  investigations 
which  have  been  made  by  the  FBI.  We  want  to  learn  from  the  FBI 
files  A\'lio  are  witnesses , possessing  some  knowledge  which  is  worthwhile 
for  the  committee  to  hear. 

Mr.  Gray.  Right,  and  we  have  analyses  and  all  other  kinds  of 
books  and  summaries  and  we  will  provide  that  to  the  Ervin  Com- 
mittee. We  have  no  problem  on  that. 

Senator  Ervin.  Mr.  J.  Edgar  Hoover  never  had  a  more  ardent 
admirer  in  the  United  States  than  myself,  and  there  is  nobody  in 
the  United  States  who  has  respected  throughout  the  years  the  woi'k 
of  the  FBI  more  than  I  have  respected  it.  As  a  practicing  attorney 
and  as  a  judge  I  had  nitiny  contacts  with  the  FBI  agents.  I  have  been 
impressed  by  the  highest  standard  of  conduct  and  tlie  high  character 
Y%hich  they  possess. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you.  Senator  Ervin. 


44 

Senator  Ervin.  I  read  somewhere  in  the  press  that  the  FBI  had 
interviewed  hundreds  of  witnesses  in  connection  Mith  this  Watergate 
affair  but  that  former  Secretary  Stans,  instead  of  being  interrogated 
by  the  FBI,  had  been  permitted  to  file  with  the  FBI  a  statement 
prepared  by  him  or  for  him.  Can  you  inform  me  as  to  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  not  correct.  That  may  be  confused  with  the 
fact  that  a  deposition  was  taken  from  him  instead  of  his  appearing 
before  the  Federal  grand  jury.  I  believe  I  am  correct  on  that,  but 
subject  to  checking  my  files  and  gi\ang  you  an  accurate  answer  on 
that,  let  that  be  what  I  think  you  are  talking  about.  But  we  inter- 
viewed Secretary  Stans,  and  my  recollection  is  that  we  interviewed 
him  four  times,  no,  three  times:  on  July  5,  July  14,  and  July  28,  1972. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  statement :) 

Upon  checking  the  record  I  find  that  a  deposition  was  taken  from  Secretar.y 
Stans  on  August  2,  1972,  by  two  assistant  U.S.  attorneys  at  the  Department  of 
Justice  in  lieu  of  Federal  grand  jury  testimony.  In  further  checking,  I  find  that 
we  interviewed  Secretary  Stans  four  times;  one  time  on  July  5,  twice  on  Jul}'  14, 
and  one  time  on  July  28,  1972. 

Senator  Ervin.  Now  the  reason  I  asked  that  question  is  that  I 
know,  as  a  lawyer,  that  you  cannot  crossexamine  a  statement.  That 
is  the  reason  that  the  rumor  or  statement  I  read  gave  me  some 
concern. 

There  is  one  other  thing  I  would  like  to  ask.  Did  you  ever  know  Mr, 
Donald  H.  Segretti,  a  California  lawyer?  '         *"" 

Mr.  Gray.  Did  I  know  him  personally,  sir? 

Senator  Ervin.  Yes, 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Ervin.  The  Washington  Post,  on  October  15,  1972,  reported 
that  Lawrence  Young,  a  California  attorney,  who  I  believe  was  a 
college  mate  of  Mr.  Segretti,  stated  in  a  sworn  statement  that  Mr. 
Segretti  told  him,  among  other  things,  that  on  August  19 — well,  I 
will  say  before  reading  it  that  Mr.  Young  stated  in  an  affidavit  sup- 
plied to  the  Washington  Post  that  he  and  Mr.  Segretti  and  Dwight 
L.  Chapin  were  college  mates — I  believe  it  was  at  Southern  California, 
I  am  not  sure  of  the  institution — and  that  Mr.  Segretti  told  him  that 
he  had  been  interviewed  by  the  FBI  on  one  or  more  occasions,  that 
he  had  been  subpenaed  as  a  witness  to  testify  in  the  Watergate  case, 
and  that  on  August  19,  1972,  two  days  before  the  Republican  National 
Convention,  that  he,  Mr.  Segretti,  went  to  Miami  Beach,  and  that 
while  he  was  there  a  presidential  aide  showed  him  copies  of  two  inter- 
views he  had  with  the  FBI,  including  one  that  was  not  yet  24  hours 
old. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  we  only  interviewed  Segretti  once  but  I  have  to 
check  that.  Let  me  just  check  this  record  here.  I  know  we  interviewed 
him  on  the  26th  of  June  and  am  just  trying  to  see  whether  there  was 
another  date  on  which  we  interviewed  him. 

My  recollection,  first,  is  that  we  only  interviewed  him  on  the  26th 
of  June.  I  don't  know  whether  we  interviewed  him  a  second  time.  We 
didn't  look  into  that  allegation  at  all  as  to  whether  or  not  he  was 
shown  any  FBI  interview  statements. 

Senator  Ervin.  Then  you  can't  give  me  any  information  on  that 
question; 

Mr.  Gray.  I  can  give  you  information  on  it  but  I  can't  tell  you 
whether  or  not  he  was  shown  those  statements — that  is  what  I  cannot 


45, 

tell  you.  To  give  you  that  information  I  am  going  to  have  to  take  time 
to  tell  you  how  we  progressed  on  this  investigation. 

Senator  Ervin.  Well,  that  wouldn't  be  a  likely  procedure  to  be  per- 
mitted bv  the  FBI,  would  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  Of  course  not.  We  certainly  would  not. 

Senator  Ervin.  So  you,  at  the  present  time,  can  neither  affirm  nor 
deny  that  statement; 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  don't  because  I  can't;  I  can't  say  with  any  degree 
of  certainty  testifying  under  oath  that  he  was  or  was  not. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  take  it  that  you  give  the  committee  your  assurance 
that  if  any  such  event  happened,  that  is  if  any  copy  of  the  FBI  inter- 
view was  given  to  Mr.  Segretti  it  was  not  given  by  you  or  with  your 
knowledge  or  consent; 

Mr.  Gray.  It  was  not  done  with  my  knowledge  or  consent,  that  is 
true.  But  I  can  go  into  it  further  if  you  want  me  to  explain  how  it 
possibly  could. 

Senator  Ervin.  Yes,  I  would  like  to  have  that. 

Mr.  Gray.  When  we  started  out  this  investigation,  it  was  the  most 
closelv  held  investigation  that  we  have  conducted  in  the  FBI  because 
of  the  fact  that  we  did  not  know  who  might  become  involved.  Dis- 
semination of  information  on  this  was  very  limited,  at  my  explicit 
order,  and  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United 
States. 

Now  there  was  that  contact  between  the  case  agents  and  the 
Assistant  U.S.  Attorneys  that  traditionally  occurs  in  an  investigation. 
There  was  contact  also  with  the  assistant  attorney  general  of  the  crimi- 
nal division,  and  in  accordance  with  then  standard  FBI  operating 
procedures,  on  June  19  there  was  delivered  to  me  a  summary  report  of 
what  had  transpired  to  date,  facts  and  circumstances,  in  Watergate. 
Coupled  with  that  was  a  letterhead  memorandum,  as  I  recall  it,  and 
I  will  introduce  those  documents  for  the  record  here,  a  letterhead 
memorandum  transmitting  this  information  to  the  Attorney  General, 
and  a  letter  prepared  addressed  to  H.R.  Haldeman.  I  said  no,  and  I 
stopped  it  right  then  and  there.  That  was  in  accordance  with  then 
standard  FBI  operating  procedure.  The  material  just  came  up,  and  I 
said  no. 

Now,  as  time  went  on  we  finalh^  began  delivering  the  investigative 
reports  to  the  assistant  attorney  general  of  the  criminal  division  and 
we  have  a  listing  of  the  da:tes  on  which  we  did  that  and  I  will 
submit  that  for  the  record.  Then,  I  think  it  was  the  middle  of  July, 
about  the  19th,  I  was  asked  by  the  White  House,  by  John  Dean,  to 
provide  them  with  a  letterhead  memorandum  because  he  wanted  to 
have  what  we  had  to  date  because  the  President  specifically  charged 
him  with  looking  into  any  involvement  on  the  part  of  White  House 
staff  members. 

I  asked  m}^  legal  counsel  to  prepare  a  memorandum  regarding 
whether  or  not  we  had  a  duty  to  send  any  material  to  the  White 
House.  The  answer  came  back:  On  our  own  initiative,  no;  in  response 
to  a  directive  from  an  individual  acting  for  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  that  is  another  matter  and  we  do. 

So  I  had  prepared,  caused  to  be  prepared,  a  letterhead  memoran- 
dum, dated  Jul}^  21,  and  we  will  submit  that  for  the  record,  and  that 
was  submitted  to  the  Attorney  General.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe 

91-331 — 73 1 


4.6 

that  that  went  over  to  Mr.  Dean  at  the  White  House.  I  have  no 
reason  to  question  that  it  should  or  should  not,  because  I  work  for 
the  President  of  the  United  States  and  I  think  the  President  of  the 
United  States  is  entitled  to  ask  the  Director  of  the  Federal  Bureau 
of  Investigation:  "What  information  do  you  have  that  implicates 
individuals  who  are  members  of  my  staff?"  And  I  submitted  it. 

Later  on,  Mr.  Dean  asked  to  review  the  interview  reports  of  the 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  and  I  submitted  those  to  him.  So  you 
see  the  possibility  here,  Senator,  and  I  think  what  is  being  driven  at 
in  this,  the  allegation  is  really  directed  toward  Mr.  Dean  having  one  of 
these  interview  reports  and  showing  it  to  Mr.  Segretti  down  in  Miami. 
I  can  tell  you  this,  that  when  this  newspaper  report  hit  I  called  John 
Dean  and  I  asked  him  if  he  had  done  this,  and  he  said:  "I  did  not. 
I  didn't  even  have  those  documents  ^vith  me." 

Senator  Ervin.  Now,  am  I  correct  in  inferring  that  it  had  been 
the  practice  to  supply  information  collected  by  the  FBI,  either  in  the 
form  of  summaries  or  in  the  form  of  copies  of  interviews,  to  officials 
of  the  Department  of  Justice  or  the  district  attorne3rs; 

Mr.  Gray.  Our  regular  procedure,  Senator  Ervin,  of  course,  is  to 
work  very  closely  with  the  assistant  U.S.  attorneys  and  with  U.S. 
attorneys,  and  then  at  FBI  headquarters  levels  to  work  ^vith  the 
Assistant  Attorney  General  having  cognizance  of  the  case,  and  the 
answer  to  your  question  is  "Yes;  we  keep  them  informed."  In  this  case 
we  were  even  tight  with  information  there. 

Senator  Ervin.  Let  me  see  if  1  understand  another  thing  you  said. 
Some  information  or  a  summary  of  some  information  collected  by 
the  FBI  in  regard  to  some  aspect  of  the  Watergate  matter,  accom- 
panied by  a  proposed  letter,  was  to  be  sent  to  Mr.  Haldeman?      -~;'' 

J\lr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  that  happened  on  June  19,  and  I  will  subiiiit 
those  documents  for  the  record.  I  will  show  them  exactly  as  they 
.came  up  to  me,  and  I  said  "No." 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documents:) 

''"■■'.  .  .  June  19,  1972. 

To:  The  Attorney  General  from  Acting  Director,  FBI. 

Re  James  Walter  McCord,  Jr.,  and  otliers,  burglary  of  Democratic  Party  National 
Headquarters,  Washington,  D.C.  "' 

Enclosed  is  a  memorandum  containing  the  results  of  investigation  of  the 
burglary  of  the  Democratic  Party  National  Headquarters,  Watergate  Apart- 
ments, Washington,  D.C,  on  June'l7,  1972. 

A  copy  of  the  memorandum  has  also  been  furnished  to  Honorable  H.  R.  Halde- 
man, Assistant  to  the  President.  Investigation  concerning  this  matter  is  continu- 
ing and  reports  of  investigation  will  be  furnished  to  the  Criminal  Division  as 
soon  as  thev  are  received. 


U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  D.C,  June  19,  1972. 
Hon.  H.  R.  Haldeman, 
Assistant  to  the  President, 
The  White  House, 
Washington,  D.C. 

De;ar  Mr.  Haldeman:  Enclosed  is  a  memorandum  containing  the  results  of 
investigation  of  the  burglary  of  the  Democratic  Part}'  National  Headquarters, 
Watergate  Apartments,  Washington,  D.C,  on  June  17,  1972. 

A  copy  of  the  memorandum  has  also  been  forwarded  to  the  Attorney  General 
and  investigation  by  the  FBI  is  continuing. 
Smcerely  yours, 

L.  Patrick  Gray,  III, 

Acting  Director. 


47-. 

James  Walter  McCosd,  Jr.,  and  Others,  Burglary  of, Democratic  Party 
National  Headquarters,  Washington,   D.C,  June  17,   1972 

interception  of  communications 

At  approximately  2:30  a.m.,  June  17,  1972,  officers  of  the  Washington,  D.C, 
Metropolitan  Police  Department  (AIPD),  acting  on  information  received  from  the 
security  guard,  Watergate  Apartments,  2600  Virginia  Avenue,  N.W.,  Washington,  . 
D.C,  that  locks  in  the  building  had  been  tampered  with,  arrested  five  individuals 
in  the  office  of  the  Democratic  Party  National  Headquarters.  These  individuals 
have  been  identified  as:  James  Walter  McCord,  Jr.;  Bernard  L.  Barker;  Frank. 
Anthony  Fiorini;  Virgirlo  R.  Gonzales;  and  Eugenio  Rolando  Martinez  y  Ceaga. 
These  individuals  had  in  their  possession  burglary  tools  and  a  quantity  of  eaves- 
dropping and  photographic  equipment. 

At  the  time  of  the  arrests,  it  was  observed  that  several  ceiling  panels  had  been 
removed,  as  well  as  a  telephone  jack  and  an  air  conditioning  cover,  apparently 
in  preparation  for  concealment  of  the  eavesdropping  devices. 

All  subjects  have  been  charged  with  burglary,  in  violation  of  Section  1801, 
Title  22,  District  of  Columbia  Code,  and  all  except  McCord  are  being  held  in 
lieu  of  $50,000  bond.  McCord  is  being  held  in  lieu  of  $30,000  bond.  A  preliminary 
hearing  is  set  for  June  29,  1972.  Ail  subjects  have  declined  to  be  interviewed 
concerning  this  matter. 

At  the  time  of  their  arrests,  the  subjects  were  in  possession  of  $2,400,  including 
thirteen  new  $100  bills.  A  search  of  rooms  rented  at  the  Watergate  Hotel  by 
these  individuals,  pursuant  to  a  search  warrant  authorized  by  Assistant  U.S. 
Attorney  Charles  Work,  Washington,  D.C,  disclosed  an  additional  $3,500  in 
new  $100  bills  of  the  same  series  and  originating  serial  numbers  as  those  found  at 
the  time  of  the  arrests. 

Investigation  reveals  the  following  information  concerning  the  background 
of  the  persons  arrested: 

James  Walter  McCord,  Jr.,  of  Rockville,  Maryland,  who  at  the  time  of  his 
arrest  gave  the  name  Edward  Alartin,  has  been  determined  to  have  been  emplo.yed 
as  an  FBI  Agent  from  October,  1948  to  February,  1951;  having  been  emploj^ed  by 
Central  Intelligence  Agency  (CIA)  August,  1951  to  August,  1970;  and  is  presently 
reported  to  be  Chief  of  Security  for  the  "Committee  to  Reelect  Nixon,"  1701 
Pennsylvania  Avenue,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.C.  In  addition,  McCord,  in  February, 
1<)72,  was  reportedly  in  charge  of  security  for  the  family  of  former  Attorney 
General  John  N.  Mitchell. 

Bernard  L.  Barker,  who  is  also  known  as  Frank  Carter,  is  reported  to  be  a 
Cuban  national  who  is  in  the  real  estate  business  in  Coral  Gables,  Florida.  He  is 
indicated  to  have  been  of  interest  to  the  CIA  in  the  past  but  is  not  of  curreilt 
interest.  He  is  reported  to  be  very  active  in  anti-Castro  groups  in  Florida. 

Frank  Anthony  Fiorini,  also  known  as  Fred  Frank  Fiorini,  Attila  F.  Sturgis,' 
Anthony  Sturgis  and  Edward  Joseph  Hamilton,  was  arrested  on  July  30,  1958, 
for  illegal  possession  of  arms  in  Florida.  Prosecution  was  declined  concerning 
that  matter.  Sources  in  the  Miami  area  report  he  is  a  "soldier  of  fortune"  and 
allegedly  was  a  gun  runner  to  Cuba  prior  to  the  Castro  regime.  Sources  in  Miami 
say  he  is  now  associated  with  organized  crime  activities,  the  details  of  which  are 
not  available. 

Virgirio  R.  Gonzales,  also  known  as  Raoul  Godo.v,  is  a  native  of  Guba,  currentlj'- 
residing  in  Miami,  Florida.  CIA  records  do  not  indicate  Gonzales  is  known  to 
that  agency;  however,  further  check  is  being  made  in  this  regard. 

Eugenio  Pi,olando  Martinez  y  Creaga,  also  known  as  Eugenio  Rolando  Martinez, 
GeneValdes  and  Jean  Yaldes,  is  a  native  of  Cuba.  He  was  arrested  November  24, 
1958,  for  violation  of  immigration  laws  in  Miami,  Florida,  and  was  deported  to 
Havana,  Cuba,  on  January  2,  1959.  He  reportedly  arrived  in  the  United  States 
by  boat  on  June  18,  1938,  from  Cuba.  Sources  in  Miami  report  Martinez  is  a 
friend  of  Barker  and  is  possibly  in  the  real  estate  business  with  Barker.  CIA 
records  do  not  indicate  that  Martinez  is  known  to  that  agency;  however,  further 
check  is  being  made  in  this  regard. 

It  is  to  be  noted  at  the  time  of  the  search  of  the  subjects'  hotel  rooms,  a  stamped 
sealed  envelope  was  located.  This  envelope  contained  a  check  drawn  by  E.  Howard 
Hunt  in  the  amount  of  $6.39  and  a  bill  from  Lakewood  Country  Club,  Rockville, 
Maryland,  to  Hunt  in  care  of  Weybright  &  Talley,  New  York  City.  Runt  has 
been  determined  to  be  Everette  Howard  Hunt,  Jr.,  who  was  employed  by  CIA 
from  November,  1949  to  April,  1970,  and  on  whom  the  FBI  conducted  a  Special 
Inquiry  investigation  in  July,  1971,  for  a  White  House  staff  position.  Mr.  A.  P. 


48 

Butterfield,  Deputy  Assistant  to  the  President,  advised  that  Hunt  was  used  as- 
a  consultant  by  the  White  House  on  "highly  sensitive,  confidential  matters" 
about  nine  months  ago.  To  Mr.  Butterfield's  knowledge,  he  has  not  been  used 
since.  Hunt  was  interviewed,  admitted  the  checic  in  question  is  his,  but  refused 
to  discuss  this  matter  or  the  individuals  involved  without  consulting  his  attorney. 

It  is  noted  that  shortly  after  the  subjects  were  arrested,  a  Washington,  D.C., 
attorney,  named  Michael  Douglas  Caddy,  appeared  at  the  2nd  District,  MPD, 
stating  he  was  representing  the  five  subjects.  It  is  known  that  when  the  subjects 
were  arrested,  they  refused  the  opportunity  to  make  a  telephone  call  and  had 
no  way  of  contacting  Mr.  Caddy.  He  wa-s  asked  how  he  became  aware  of  the 
arrests  but  refused  to  furnish  anj^  information  stating  he  would  recontact  Assistant 
U.S.  Attorney  Work  in  a  few  days  after  thinking  the  matter  over.  Subsequently, 
he  advised  FBI  Agents  he  received  a  call  at  3:00  a.m.,  June  17,  1972,  from  a 
person  whose  identity  he  would  not  reveal.  It  is  noted  that  Caddy,  during  FBI 
investigation  of  Hunt,  was  listed  by  Hunt  as  a  personal  reference  and  at  that 
time  Caddy  advised  he  had  known  Hunt  for  about  two  years. 

Investigation  of  this  matter  is  continuing  by  the  FBI  to  determine  whether 
there  is  a  violation  of  the  Interception  of  Ccmimunications  Statutes  or  any  other 
Federal  statutes. 

This  document  contains  neither  recommendations  nor  conclusions  of  the  FBI. 
It  is  the  property  of  the  FBI  and  is  loaned  to  your  agency;  it  and  its  contents  are 
not  to  be  distributed  outside  your  agency. 

Investigative  reports  delivered  to  Assistant  Attorney  General  Henry  Petersen, 
Criminal  Division  of  the  Department: 

Number  of 
Date  reports 

June  30,  1972 13 

Julv  3,  1972 13 

Julv  7,  1972 10' 

July  14,  1972J_ , 22 

Julv  19,  1972 23 

July  20,  1972 I 

Aug.  1,  1972 24 

Aug.  11,  1972 11 

Aug.  25,  1972 9 

Sept.  28,  1972 12 

Oct.  13,  1972 6 

Oct.  20,  1972 8 

Dec.  6,  1972 18 

Dec.  22,  1972 2 

Jan.  11,  1973 7 

Jan.  15,  1973 2 

Jan.  26,  1973 1 

Feb.  1,  1973 1 

Feb.  9,  1973 1 

Feb.  13,  1973___ I 

Feb.  16,  1973 1 

Total 18ft 


U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  D.C.,  July  21,  1972. 
James  Walter  McCord,  Jr., 
Burglary  of  the  Democratic  Party  National  Headquarters,  Washington,  D.C. 

There  follows  a  summary  of  pertinent  investigation  conducted  of  the  captioned 
matter  through  July  20,  1972: 

Burglary  and  Arrest:  At  approximately  2:30  a.m.,  June  17,  1972,  officers  of  the 
Metropolitan  PoUce  Department  (MPD)  apprehended  five  individuals  in  an 
executive  conference  room  of  the  Democratic  Party  National  Headquarters  lo- 
cated on  the  6th  floor  of  the  Watergate  Apartments,  2600  Virginia  Avenue,  N.W., 
Washington,  D.C.  At  the  time  of  arrest  the  subjects  had  in  their  possession 
burglary  tools,  electronic  and  photographic  equipment  and  were  wearing  surgical- 
type  plastic  gloves. 


49 

Those  arrested  were  identified  as  James  Walter  McCord,  Jr.,  using  the  alias 
Edward  Warren;  Bernard  L.  Barker,  using  the  alias  Frank  Carter;  Eugenio 
Rolando  Martinez  y  Creaga,  using  the  alias  Gene  Valdes;  Frank  Anthony  Sturgia, 
also  known  as  Frank  Anthony  Fiorini,  using  the  aliases  Joseph  Di  Alberto  and 
Edward  Hamilton;  and  Virgirlo  Gonzales,  using  the  alias  Raoul  Godoy. 

All  subjects  refused  to  be  interviewed,  refused  to  state  for  whom  they  were 
working,  from  where  they  came  or  their  purpose  for  being  in  the  building.  They 
were  all  charged  with  Burglary,  Section  1801,  Title  22,  District  of  Columbia 
Code,  and  were  held  on  $50,000  bond  except  for  McCord,  a  Rockville,  Maryland, 
resident,  whose  bond  was  set  at  $30,000.  AH  but  Sturgis  have  since  been  released 
from  District  of  Columbia  Jail  on  bond. 

McCord,  who  appears  to  have  been  the  leader  of  this  group,  retired  from  the 
Central  Intelligence  Agency  (CIA)  on  August  31,  1970,  and  at  the  time  of  his 
arrest  he  was  Chief  of  Security  for  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President.  The 
remaining  subjects  are  all  known  to  have  Cuban  backgrounds  and  either  worked 
with  or  participated  in  CIA  activities  against  the  Castro  Government. 

Involvement  of  Everette  Howard  Hunt,  Jr.:  After  the  arrests  of  the  subjects  in 
the  Democratic  Party  National  Headquarters,  pursuant  to  an  authorized  search 
warrant,  a  search  was  made  of  the  rooms  rented  by  the  subjects,  using  aliases,  at 
the  Watergate  Hotel.  Among  the  items  located  was  an  envelope  containing  a 
check  of  E.  Howard  Hunt  in  the  amount  of  $6.39  in  payment  for  a  bill  from  Lake- 
wood  Country  Club,  Rockville,  Maryland,  to  Hunt  in  care  of  a  publications  firm 
in  New  York  City.  Hunt,  when  contacted,  admitted  the  check  was  his  but  refused 
to  discuss  the  matter  before  consulting  his  attorney.  Also  located  in  the  subjects' 
rooms  were  personal  telephone  directories  which  contained  names,  telephone 
numbers  and  addresses  of  numerous  persons  in  Miami,  New  York  and  Washington, 
D.C.  One  of  the  names  contained  in  the  telephone  book  of  subject  Martinez  is 
"Hunt  (W.  House),"  together  with  the  telephone  number  of  Hunt's  office  at  the 
White  House. 

Investigation  developed  that  Hunt  was  employed  by  the  CIA  from  November  8, 
1949,  to  April  30,  1970,  when  he  retired.  On  May  1,  1970,  he  became  employed 
by  Robert  R.  Mullen  Company,  1700  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  N.W.,  Washington, 
D.C,  a  public  relations  and  fund  raising  organization.  Beginning  July  6,  1971, 
Hunt  was  employed  on  a  consultant  basis  by  the  White  House  staff,  working 
with  Mr.  David  R.  Young  and  Mr.  Charles  W.  Colson.  He  is  reported  to  have 
been  used  as  a  consultant  on  declassification  of  the  Pentagon  Papers.  His  services 
were  last  utilized  in  this  capacity  on  March  29,  1972.  Information  was  developed 
that  on  the  recommendation  of  a  member  of  Mr.  Colson's  staff,  Hunt  was  ter- 
minated as  a  consultant  effective  April  1,  1972,  and  was  to  be  hired  immediately 
thereafter  by  "1701"  (1701  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  N.W.,  is  the  address  of  the 
Committee  to  Reelect  the  President). 

Investigation  developed  that  between  January  1,  1972,  and  June  20,  1972, 
Hunt  was  in  frequent  and  regular  contact  with  the  office  and  residence  of  Bernard 
L.  Barker,  Miami,  Florida.  Investigation  further  developed  that  Hunt,  frequently 
utiHzing  the  alias  Ed  J.  Hamilton,  together  with  George  Gordon  Liddy,  who 
frequently  used  the  alias  George  Leonard  or  G.  Leonard,  traveled  extensively 
around  the  United  States  contacting  former  CIA  employees  for  the  purpose  of 
setting  up  a  security  organization  for  the  Republican  Party  dealing  with  "political 
espionage." 

Involvemeyit  of  Michael  Douglas  Caddy:  Michael  Douglas  Caddy,  also  known  as 
Douglas  Caddy,  is  an  Attorney  at  Law  having  offices  at  1250  Connecticut  Avenue, 
N.W.,  Washington,  D.C,  and  is  associated  with  the  law  firm  Gall,  Lane,  Powell, 
and  Kilcullen.  Caddy  gratuitously  appeared  at  the  Metropolitan  Police  Depart- 
ment where  subjects  were  taken  after  being  arrested  and  claimed  to  represent  them. 
Prior  to  Caddy's  arrival,  none  of  the  subjects  made  any  phone  calls  which  might 
have  precipitated  his  appearance.  Investigation  disclosed  telephone  calls  were 
made  during  the  early  morning  hours  of  June  17,  1972,  from  the  telephone  of 
Everette  Howard  Hunt  at  the  Robert  R.  Mullen  and  Company  to  the  Barker 
residence  in  Miami,  Florida,  and  from  Barker's  residence  to  the  residence  of  Caddy. 

Upon  Caddy's  appearance  before  the  Federal  grand  jury  at  Washington,  D.C, 
he  was  held  in  contempt  of  court  for  failing  to  answer  questions  on  the  basis  he  had 
an  attorney-client  relationship  with  Hunt.  Contempt  action  was  upheld  by  the 
U.S.  Court  of  Appeals  on  July  19,  1972.  Caddy  subsequently  testified  he  received  a 
telephone  call  from  Hunt  at  around  3:00  a.m.,  on  June  17,  1972. 

Involvement  of  George  Gordon  Liddy:  As  is  set  forth  elsewhere  in  this  memoran- 
dum, Everette  Howard  Hunt  traveled  extensively  endeavoring  to  recruit  former 
CIA  employees  for  security  work  for  the  Republican  Party  in  late  1971  and  early 


50 

1972.  Investigation  has  developed  that  Liddy  accompanied  Hunt  on  a  number  of 
these  trips.  Liddy,  a  former  FBI  Agent,  was  employed  from  April,  1969,  to  July, 
1971,  by  the  U.S.  Treasury  Department  in  the  office  of  Law  Enforcement.  When 
he  resigned  from  the  Treasury  Department,  Liddy  accepted  a  position  on  the 
White  House  staff  and  in  December,  1971,  resigned  therefrom  to  work  for  the  Com- 
mittee for  the  Reelection  of  the  President. 

The  telephone  notebook  of  Martinez  which  was  recovered  when  the  rooms  of 
the  subjects  were  searched  at  the  Watergate  Hotel  contained  a  notation  "  George" 
with  the  telephone  number  of  202-333-6575.  The  telephone  notebook  of 
Bernard  L.  Barker,  located  in  the  above  mentioned  search,  contained  a  notation 
"George"  with  the  telephone  number  WDC  333-0362.  Investigation  developed 
that  both  of  these  numbers  were  at  the  office  of  the  Committee  for  the  Reelection 
of  the  President,  1701  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  N.W.,  Washington,  D.C. 

It  is  noted  that  Mr.  Maurice  Stans,  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee  for 
the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President,  advised  that  the  $25,000  cashier's  check 
,  payable  to  Kenneth  H.  Dahlberg,  dated  April  10,  1972,  was  turned  over  to 
Liddy,  counsel  for  the  Finance  Committee,  for  a  legal  opinion  as  to  how  it  would 
be  best  to  handle  the  receipt  and  recording  of  this  check  as  the  funds  allegedly 
had  been  contributed  prior  to  April  7,  1972,  although  the  check  was  dated  April 
10,  1972,  after  the  effective  date  of  new  disclosure  and  reporting  law.  The  check 
was  cashed  by  subject  Bernard  L.  Barker  at  his  bank  in  Miami,  Florida,  but  Mr. 
Stans  had  no  idea  how  Barker  obtained  the  check.  (See  write-up  elsewhere  in 
this  memorandum  concerning  the  tracing  of  funds  and  the  write-up  concerning  the 
Howard  Johnson  Motel  wherein  it  is  shown  that  Liddy  was  observed  giving  a 
large  sum  of  money  in  cash  to  subject  McCord.)  Liddy  is  reported  to  have  been 
discharged  by  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President  because  Liddy  declined  to 
be  interviewed  by  FBI  Agents  concerning  this  case. 

Howard  Johnson  Motel  Lookout:  Investigation  developed  that  James  Walter 
McCord,  Jr.,  rented  Room  419  at  the  Howard  Johnson  Motel,  2601  Virginia 
Avenue,  N.W.,  Washington,  D.C,  from  May  5,  1972,  to  May  28,  1972,  and 
Room  723  from  May  29,  1972,  until  June  17,  1972.  Room  723  was  found  vacant 
by  m-otel  employees  the  evening  of  June  17,  1972.  This  motel  is  located  directly 
across  the  street  from  the  Watergate  Apartments  and  Room  723  faces  the  suite 
occupied  by  the  Democratic  Party  National  Headquarters  at  the  Watergate 
Apartments. 

Alfred  Carleton  Baldwin,  III,  a  former  FBI  Agent,  has  been  identified  as  the 
individual  who  occupied  Rooms  419  and  723  from  about  May  11,  1972,  to  June  17, 
;  1972.  Baldwin  advised  that  during  a  period  of  this  time  he  monitored,  through  the 
use  of  electronic  equipment  set  up  by  McCord,  telephone  conversations  of  Spencer 
Oliver,  a  Democratic  Party  official.  McCord  told  Baldwin  that  four  extensions  of 
Oliver's  telephone  located  "at  the  Democratic  Party  National  Headquarters,  were 
being  monitored. 

Baldwin  stated  that  while  he  was  occupying  Room  723  on  one  occasion,  the 
specific  date  which  he  cannot  determine,  George  Gordon  Liddy  and  Everette 
Howard  Hunt  came  to  the  room  and  had  a  conversation  with  McCord.  On  this 
occasion  Liddy  took  an  envelope  from  his  suit  jacket  and  counted  out  about 
$16,000  to  $18,000  in  $100  bUls,  which  he  gave  to  McCord.  McCord  pocketed  the 
money  and  all  three  individuals  left  the  room. 

On  the  evening  of  June  16,  1972,  McCord  came  to  Room  723  and  requested 
Baldwin  to  purchase  six  batteries  and  some  "speaker  wire."  Baldwin  obtained  the 
batteries  but  did  not  buy  the  wire  and  McCord  subsequently  departed  to  locate 
some  wire.  He  returned  about  11:00  p.m.  to  11:30  p.m.,  carrying  the  wire  and 
various  other  electronic  components  appearing  to  have  come  from  Lafayette 
Radio. 

About  12:00  a.m.  to  12:30  a.m.,  June  17,  1972,  McCord  received  a  telephone  call 
and  told  Baldwin  that  "we're  going  across  the  street,"  pointing  to  the  Democratic 
Headquarters.  McCord  told  Baldwin  to  watch  and  if  anything  unusual  occurred 
to  contact  McCord  by  walkie-talkie. 

About  2:15  a.m.,  June  17,  1972,  Baldwin  noticed  lights  going  on  in  the  Water- 
gate Apartments  and  subsequently  police  beginning  to  arrive.  He  attempted  to 
utilize  the  walkie-talkie  to  alert  McCord  and  received  a  response  in  a  whisper, 
"We  hear  j^ou,  they  got  us."  About  this  time  Baldwin  noticed  two  men  leaving  the 
alley  on  the  east  side  of  the  Watergate  and  identified  them  as  Hunt  and  Liddy. 
Hunt  came  to  Room  723  and  used  the  phone  to  contact  an  attorney.  Hunt  told 
Baldwin  to  telephone  Mrs.  McCord  and  advise  her  that  her  husband  had  been 
arrested.  He  also  told  Baldwin  to  pack  up  the  electronic  gear  and  deliver  it  to 
Mrs.  McCord  in  McCord's  panel  truck  which  was  parked  in  the  basement  of  the 


51 

Howard  Johnson  Motel.  He  further  told  Baldwin  to  pack  up  his  own  belongings 
and  go  home.  Baldwin  delivered  the  electronic  equipment  together  with  McCord's 
wallet  which  had  been  left  in  the  room  to  Mrs.  McCord  at  about  4:00  a.m.,  June  17, 
1972.  She  drove  him  back  to  his  own  car  and  he  thereupon  drove  to  his  home 
in  Connecticut. 

Travel  Miami— Washington,  D.C.:  Travel  June  16,  1972. 

Investigation  at  Tamiami  Tours,  Miami,  Florida,  identified  subjects  Bernard  L. 
Barker  and  Eugenio  R.  Martinez  as  individuals  who  on  June  12,  1972,  purchased 
four  round  trip  tickets  from  Miami  to  Washington,  D.C.,  on  Eastern  Airlines 
flight  190  for  June  16,  1972.  These  tickets,  which  were  found  on  the  subjects  at 
the  time  of  their  arrest,  were  purchased  in  the  names  of  G.  Valdes  (alias  of  subject 
Eugenio  Martinez),  F.  Carter  (ahas  of  subject  Bernard  L.  Barker),  J.  Di  Alberto 
(alias  of  subject  Frank  Fiorini).  and  R.  Godoy  (alias  of  subject  Virgirlo  Gonzales). 

At  time  of  their  arrest  June  17,  1972,  the  subjects,  except  for  McCord  were 
determined  to  be  registered  at  the  Watergate  Hotel,  Washington,  D.C.,  under  the 
aliases  shown  on  the  foregoing  airline  tickets. 

Travel  May  22-30,  1972.  Subject  Eugenio  Martinez  has  been  identified  as  the 
individual  who  on  May  17,  1972,  bought  six  one-way  tickets  at  Tamiami  Tours 
for  travel  from  Miami  to  Washington,  D.C.,  on  National  Airlines  flight  100  de- 
parting May  22,  1972.  These  tickets  were  purchased  by  Martinez  in  the  names  of 
Frank  Carter  (alias  of  Barker),  J.  Granada  (believed  to  be  Reinaldo  Pico,  pres- 
ently in  South  America  on  business),  Joseph  Di  Albert!  (alias  of  Fiorini),  Raoul 
Godoy  (alias  of  Gonzales),  Jose  Piedra  (alias  of  Felipe  De  Diego)  and  G.  Valdes 
(alias  of  Martinez). 

Investigation  has  determined  that  the  foregoing  individuals  under  the  aliases 
shown  were  registered  at  the  Hamilton  Hotel,  Washington,  D.C.,  from  May  22,. 
1972,  to  May  26,  1972,  at  which  time  they  moved  to  the  Watergate  Hotel,  Wash- 
ington, D.C.,  where  they  stayed  until  May  30,  1972. 

Investigation  further  discloses  these  individuals  were  joined  at  the  Watergate 
Hotel  by  two  additional  persons  using  the  names  of  George  Leonard  (beUeved  to 
be  George  Gordon  Liddy)  from  Kansas  City,  Kansas,  and  Edward  Warren 
(believed  to  be  Everctte  Howard  Hunt)  from  New  York  City.  V/arren  paid  the 
Watergate  Hotel  bill  for  these  individuals,  totaling  a  little  over  $1,000  in  cash. 

Felipe  De  Diego,  an  employee  of  Barker's  real  estate  firm,  has  been  interviewed 
and  admits  being  -Rath  the  subjects  during  the  period  May  22-30,  1972,  in  Wash- 
ington, D.C,  According  to  De  Diego,  he  was  requested  by  Barker  to  make  this 
trip  but  he  does  not  know  the  purpose  of  the  trip  and  during  his  stay  in  Washing- 
ton, D.C,  the  group  appeared  to  be  waiting  to  hear  from  some  unidentified 
individual. 

It  is  noted  that  on  May  28,  1972,  there  was  a  reported  break-in  of  the  Demo- 
cratic Party  National  Headquarters,  Watergate  Apartments,  Washington,  D.C. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  the  Security  Guard  at  the  Watergate  Apartments 
reported  that  sometime  over  the  Memorial  Day  week  end  (he  cannot  pin  this 
down  any  closer)  papers  were  found  stuffed  in  the  doorway  of  the  6th  floor  stair- 
well in  an  apparent  attempt  to  keep  the  door  from  working.  Democratic  Party 
National  Headquarters  is  located  on  the  6th  floor  of  the  Watergate  Apartments. 
Tracing  of  Funds;  There  follows  a  summary  of  investigation  to  trace  funds  that 
may  have  been  used  to  finance  the  operation  involving  the  burgarj-  of  the 
Democratic  National  Headquarters  on  June  17,  1972. 

Bank  Account  of  Bernard  L.  Barker;  Barker  as  Barker  Associates,  a  real  estate 
firm,  maintains  an  account  at  the  Republic  National  Bank  of  Miami.  A  review 
of  the  records  of  this  account  shows  that  on  April  21,  1972,  Barker  presented  a 
cashier's  check  dated  April  10,  1972,  payable  to  Kenneth  Dahlberg,  drawn  on  the 
First  Bank  and  Trust  Company  of  Boca  Raton,  Florida,  and  endorsed  by  Dahl- 
berg. Upon  checking  with  the  latter  bank  and  determining  that  the  cashier's  check 
was  "as  good  as  gold"  Barker  was  given  $25,000  in  cash  by  the  Republic  National 
Bank. 

Barker  on  April  21,  1972,  also  presented  to  the  Republic  National  Bank  four 
checks  dated  April  4,  1972,  totaling  $89,000,  drawn  on  the  Banco  Internacional, 
Mexico  City,  payable  to  Manuel  Ogarrio  and  endorsed  by  Ogarrio.  Since  these 
checks  were  payable  to  a  third  party,  Barker  was  told  he  would  have  to  deposit 
these  checks  and  wait  for  them  to  clear  before  he  could  receive  any  money  for  them. 
On  May  8,  1972,  Barker  was  given  $89,000  in  cash  by  the  Republic  National  Bank 
for  the  foregoing  checks. 

Bernard  L.  Barker  at  the  time  of  his  release  on  $40,000  bond  on  July  14,  1972, 
said  he  received  the  four  checks  totaling  $89,000  from  two  men  and  turned  the 
money  over  to  them.  He  took  the  5th  Amendment  when  asked  to  identify  these 
individuals. 


52 

Kenneth  DahJberg — $25,000  Cashier's  Check:  Kenneth  Dahlberg  is  a  prominent 
industrialist  and  Regional  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee  to  Reelect  the 
President,  who  lives  in  Minneapolis  and  winters  in  Boca  Raton,  Florida.  After 
several  refusals  to  be '  interviewed,  Dahlberg  on- July  6,  1972,  consented  to  be 
interviewed  regarding  the  foregoing  $2o,00U  cashier's  check  cashed  by  subject 
Barker.  Dahlberg  stated  this  check  represented  cash  contributions  he  had  ob- 
tained while  in  Boca  Raton  and  he  furnished  this  check  to  Maurice  H.  Stans, 
Chairman,  Finance  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President  on  April  11,  1972,  in 
Washington,  D.C.  According  to  Dahlberg  he  has  no  knowledge  of  what  happened 
to  this  check  after  he  surrendered  it  to  Stans.  Dahlberg  stated  he  was  not  ac- 
quainted with  subject  Barker  or  any  of  the  other  subjects  involved  in  this  matter. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  during  the  period  June  23,  1972,  to  June  26,  1972,  when  we 
were  endeavoring  to  interview  Dahlberg  concerning  this  check,  he  made  three 
telephone  calls  to  Washington,  D.C,  to  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President. 

$89,000  Banco  Internacional  Checks:  On  July  10,  1972,  Manuel  Ogarrio,  an 
attorney,  Mexico  City,  advised  that  he  purchased  the  four  foregoing  bank  drafts 
totaling  $89,000,  drawn  on  the  Banco  Internacional  as  a  favor  to  an  American 
client  of  twenty  years  standing  whom  he  refused  to  identify  other  than  as  a  re- 
liable American  company  with  operations  in  Mexico.  According  to  Ogarrio  his 
client  gave  him  a  check  for  $100,000  which  he  negotiated  into  the  foregoing  four 
bank  drafts  and  cash.  He  signed  the  checks  making  them  negotiable  and  turned 
them  and  the  remaining  $11,000  cash  over  to  his  client.  He  received  no  com- 
mission for  doing  this  and  has  no  knowledge  as  to  how  Barker  came  into  posses- 
sion of  these  checks.  According  to  Ogarrio  he  believed  the  purpose  of  the  trans- 
action was  to  convey  money  to  the  Repubhcan  Party  anonymously.  On  July  11, 
1972,  Ogarrio  in  a  reinterview  stated  that  he  learned  on  July  10,  1972,  that  the 
foregoing  endorsed  bank  drafts  were  forwarded  to  Maurice  Stans  of  the  Republi- 
can Party. 

Bank  Accounts  of  James  Walter  McCord:  McCord  maintains  a  personal  checking 
account  and  a  business  account  in  the  name  of  McCord  Associates  at  the  Maryland 
National  Bank,  College  Park,  Maryland.  The  records  of  these  accounts  show  he 
made  a  $10,000  cash  deposit  to  his  personal  account  on  April  12,  1972;  a  $10,000 
cash  deposit  to  his  business  account  on  May  31,  1972;  and  a  $10,000  cash  deposit 
to  his  business  accovmt  on  June  12,  1972. 

In  addition,  McCord  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President  on 
February  22,  1972,  opened  an  account  in  the  name  of  Dedicated  Friends  of  a 
Better  America,  with  McCord  as  Chairman,  at  the  National  Savings  and  Trust 
Company,  Washington,  D.C.  This  account  was  closed  April  17,  1972,  and  during 
the  period  it  was  opened  over  $90,000  passed  through  this  account. 

Interview  with  Maurice  Stans:  Maurice  Stans,  Chairman,  Finance  Committee 
toReelect  the  President,  was  interviewed  July  14,  1972,  at  which  time  he  advised 
that  a  $25,000  cashier's  check  was  given  to  him  by  Kenneth  Dahlberg  in  Wash- 
ington, D.C,  on  April  11,  1972.  Stans  in  turn  gave  this  check  to  Hugh  Walter 
Sloan,  Jr.,  who  at  the  time  was  responsible  for  the  supervision  of  funds  received  by 
the  Finance  Committee.  According  to  Stans,  Sloan  then  gave  this  check  to  George 
Gordon  Liddy  who  was  acting  as  legal  counsel  to  the  Finance  Committee  for  a 
determination  as  to  how  this  check  should  be  handled  since  it  was  dated  April  10, 
1972,  but  the  funds  which  it  represented  had  been  contributed  prior  to  April  7, 
1972,  the  effective  date  of  the  new  Federal  Disclosure  Act.  Sloan  subsequently 
advised  Stans  the  money  from  the  check  had  been  received  by  the  Committee. 
Stans  could  furnish  no  explanation  as  to  how  Barker  came  to  be  in  possession  of 
Dahlberg's  $2.5,000  cashier's  check. 

Stans  advised  that  on  April  6,  1972,  he  learned  from  Sloan  that  the  Committee 
to  Reelect  the  President  had  received  $100,000  in  the  form  of  bank  drafts  on 
Mexican  banks.  Stans,  when  informed  the  Mexican  drafts  totaled  $89,000  replied 
that  Sloan  had  told  him  $100,000  in  Mexican  bank  drafts  had  been  received  and 
this  is  all  he  knew  about  the  matter.  Stans  could  offer  no  explanation  as  to  how 
these  bank  drafts  came  into  Barker's  possession  nor  was  he  aware  of  the  iden- 
tity of  the  American  firm  which  allegedly  made  this  contribution. 

When  Stans  was  requested  to  make  Sloan  available  for  immediate  interview, 
he  advised  that  Sloan  had  resigned  two  weeks  ago.  Sloan  was  subsequently  con- 
tacted on  July  17,  1972,  and  he  declined  to  be  interviewed  until  he  had  a  chance 
to  discuss  this  matter  with  his  attorney. 

Interviews  at  the  White  House:  Everette  Howard  Hunt  and  George  Gordon  Liddy 
were  known  to  have  been  employed  at  the  White  House  as  consultants  and  \yhite 
House  telephone  numbers  used  by  these  individuals  were  found  in  subjects' 
possession.  Accordingly,  various  White  House  staff  members  acquainted  with 
Hunt  and  Liddy  during  their  White  House  assignment  were  interviewed. 


53 

At  the  request  of  Mr.  John  W.  Dean,  Legal  Counsel  to  the  President,  he,  Dean, 
sat  in  on  all  interviews  conducted  with  White  House  personnel.  Those  interviewed 
included  Charles  W.  Colson,  David  R.  Young,  Alfred  Wong,  Bruce  Kehrli,  Fred 
Fielding  and  Kathleen  Chnow.  All  stated  they  were  unable  to  furnish  any  infor- 
mation concerning  Hunt's  or  Liddy's  involvement  in  these  matters  involving  the 
burgulary  of  the  Democratic  National  Committee  Headquarters. 

According  to  Mr.  David  R.  Young,  both  Hunt  and  Liddy  worked  for  him  on  a 
project  to  classify  and  declassify  Government  documents. 

It  was  determined  from  Mr.  John  Dean  that  the  personal  effects  of  Everette 
Howard  Hunt  had  been  removed  on  June  20,  1972,  from  Hunt's  office  in  the 
Executive  Office  Building  and  brought  to  his.  Dean's,  office.  This  material  which 
was  turned  over  to  the  FBI  on  June  27,  1972,  included  ancillarj^  equipment  for 
the  transceivers  and  other  equipment  identical  to  items  known  to  have  been 
purchased  by  James  Walter  McCord,  Jr.  [The  June  27  date  was  subsequently 
changed  to  June  26.] 

Interviews  at  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President:  Numerous  interviews  were  conducted 
with  personnel  employed  at  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President  and  in  each 
interview  at  the  Committee's  insistence  an  attorney  of  the  Committee  was  present. 
Several  persons  subsequent  to  interviews  conducted  at  the  Committee  contacted 
the  FBI  Washington  Field  Office  and  requested  to  be  further  interviewed  away 
from  Committee  headquarters  and  without  the  knowledge  of  Committee  officials. 
These  persons  advised  that  the  presence  of  the  attornej'  during  the  interview 
prevented  them  from  being  completely  candid.  These  sources  further  advised 
that  all  Committee  people  subpoenaed  before  the  Federal  Grand  Jury  were 
subsequently  debriefed  by  Committee  attorneys  as  to  what  occurred  at  the 
Federal  Grand  Jury  hearing. 

One  of  the  foregoing  persons  confidentialh^  advised  that  Hugh  Walter  Sloan, 
Jr.,  who  supervises  Committee  finances  reportedly  maintains  a  brief  case  full  of 
money  in  his  office  safe.  During  the  period  February — April,  1972,  according  to 
this  source  Sloan  allegedly  disbursed  large  sums  to  various  Committee  officials 
for  unknown  reasons  such  as  $50,000  to  Jeb  Magruder,  $100,000  to  Herbert  L. 
Porter  and  $89,000  to  George  Gordon  Liddy. 

Another  cooperative  source  at  the  Committee  advised  confidentially  that  Com- 
mittee officials  during  interviews  were  sending  FBI  Agents  on  fishing  expeditions 
to  keep  them  from  getting  to  the  truth.  This  source  advised  that  Mrs.  McCord 
following  her  husband's  arrest  on  June  17,  1972,  told  Committee  official  Robert 
Odle  words  to  the  effect  "Well,  it  looks  like  your  project  failed."  This  source 
identified  Odle  as  one  of  the  individuals  who  was  less  than  candid  in  his  interview 
with  FBI  Agents. 

Photographs  of  Democratic  Party  Correspondence:  On  June  22,  1972,  Michael 
Richardson,  Rich  Photos,  1600  W.  Flagler  Street,  Miami,  Florida,  advised  that 
about  noon,  Saturday,  June  10,  1972,  one  white  male  who  he  tentatively  identi- 
fied from  a  photograph  as  Bernard  Barker,  came  to  this  store  which  is  located  in 
a  heavily  populated  Cuban  area.  This  individual  presented  two  rolls  of  exposed 
Kodak  tri-X  black  and  white  35  millimeter  film  on  which  he  said  documents  had 
been  photographed.  He  requested  immediate  development  and  printing  of  8  by  10 
prints.  Richardson  did  a  rush  job  and  determined  there  were  four  exposed  docu- 
ment negatives  on  one  roll  and  34  document  negatives  on  the  other  roll  for  a  total  of 
38  exposed  negatives.  Richardson  made  one  7  by  10  print  of  each  of  the  38  neg- 
atives. 

Richardson  said  most  of  the  documents  had  an  emblem  and  were  headed 
"Chairman  Democratic  National  Committee."  The  documents  photographed 
appeared  to  have  been  on  onion  skin  paper  and  most  were  typed.  A  few  consisted 
of  handwritten  notes.  On  at  least  one  of  the  documents,  there  was  the  signature 
"Dick."  Several  letters  had  the  handwritten  name  of  Lawrence  O'Brien.  One  or 
more  of  the  documents  concerned  a  resume  of  an  unrecalled  woman  who  headed 
a  local  campaign  for  Senator  Hubert  Humphrey.  Richardson  said  all  documents 
were  photographed  with  a  shag  carpet  background  and  hands  covered  with 
clear-type  gloves  held  down  each  corner  of  each  document. 

Richardson  made  no  written  record  of  the  transactions  and  maintained  no 
copy  of  the  negatives  or  prints.  Richardson  tentatively  identified  one  of  the  two 
men  who  accompanied  Barker  as  being  Fiorini,  but  was  unable  to  identify  the 
third  man. 

Investigation  at  the  Howard  Johnson  Motel,  2601  Virginia  Avenue,  N.W., 
Washington,  D.C.,  determined  the  carpet  utilized  by  the  motel  is  similar  to  that 
noticed  in  the  photographs  by  Richardson. 

Direction  of  Investigation:  Investigation  is  being  directed  to  developing  evidence 
of  an  Interception  of  Communications  violation  against  not  only  the  subjects,  but 


54 

all  those  who  may  have  assisted  them  such  as  who  recruited  them,  who  financed 
the  operation,  who  planned  the  operation,  etc.  Section  2511,  Title  18,  U.S.  Code, 
makes  it  a  violation  for  anj-one  to  willfully  intercept,  endeavor  to  intercept  or 
procure  any  other  person  to  intercept  or  endeavor  to  intercept  any  wire  or  oral 
communication.  It  is  also  a  violation  of  that  Section  for  anyone  to  willfuUj-  use, 
endeavor  to  use  or  procure  any  other  person  to  use  or  endeavor  to  use  any  elec- 
tronic, mechanical  or  other  device  to  intercept  any  oral  communication.  The 
possession  of  anj^  electronic,  mechanical  or  other  device  whicli  is  primarily  useful 
for  surreptitious  interception  of  wire  or  oral  communications  is  a  violation  of 
Section  2512,  Title  18,  U.S.  Code,  provided  the  device  or  any  component  thereof 
has  been  sent  through  the  mail  or  transported  in  interstate  or  foreign  commerce. 
Section  371,  Title  18,  U.S.  Code,  the  general  Conspiracj''  Statute,  makes  it  an 
offense  if  two  or  more  persons  conspire  to  commit  anj^  offense  against  the  United 
States. 

Senator  Ervin.  In  other  words,  so  far  as  you  know  that  proposed 
letter  never  was  sent? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  know  it  was  not  sent. 

Senator  Ervin.  I  have  seen  statements  in  the  press  to  the  effect 
that  the  Attorney  General  stated  in  substance  that  such  investiga- 
tion as  was  made  in  respect  to  the  action  of  Mr.  Segretti  did  not  indi- 
cate the  commission  of  a  crime  on  his  part  and  for  that  reason  the 
investigation  into  his  activities  was  not  as  complete  as  it  was  with 
respect  to  the  other  aspects  of  the  Watergate. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  wouldn't  sa}^  that  because  the  aspects  of  the  investiga- 
tion of  Segretti  with  regard  to  any  participation  in  a  crime  against  the 
United  States  was  as  thorough  and  as  complete  as  any  other.  But  we 
were  dealing  with  a  crime  and  we  were  not  dealing  with  political  activ- 
ity and  we  did  not  investigate  into  the  political  activity  of  Segretti, 
but  we  did  investigate  into  his  involvement  with  violations  of  law  with 
regard  to  the  intercepted  communications  statute. 

Senator  Ervin.  Thank  you  very  much. 

I  want  to  say,  Mr.  Gra}^,  you  made  a  very  moving  and  very  elo- 
quent statement. 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator  Ervin,  I  appreciate  your  comment. 

The  Chairman,  Senator  Hruska? 

Senator  Hruska.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Gray,  I  want  to  welcome  you  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  nominee  is  no  stranger  either  to  the  committee 
or  to  any  of  its  individual  members.  For  a  little  over  2  years  now  we 
have  had  the  benefit  of  his  judgment  and  his  counsel  incident  to  the 
several  high  Government  positions  he  has  occupied. 

Mr.  Chaimian,  I  believe  that  Pat  Gray  has  the  personal  attributes 
and  the  experience  that  will,  in  ni}^  judgment,  make  him  a  very  fine 
Director  of  the  FBI.  I  say  that  not  only  on  the  basis  of  the  personal 
and  official  association  that  we  have  maintained  over  the  past  2  years 
but  also  upon  the  basis  of  an  examination  of  the  record  which  has  been 
made  available  to  us.  This  includes  the  portfolio  of  speeches,  some  35 
in  number,  which  I  have  carefully  read  and  his  replies  to  the  question- 
naire submitted  to  him  by  the  Department  of  Justice  at  an  earlier  time 
when  he  was  being  considered  for  nomination  as  a  circuit  judge. 

With  regard  to  the  questionnaire,  I  want  to  say  that  i  not  only 
read  it — I  studied  it.  It  is  a  very  profound  document  in  that  it  goes 
into  considerable  detail  with  respect  to  Mr.  Gray's  private  legal  ex- 
perience as  well  as  his  experience  with  the  Government.  It  details 
the  litigation  in  which  he  was  engaged — in  most  instances  as  sole 
counsel.  It  is  an  admirable  record,  accompanied  by  a  superb  personal 
statement. 


55 

It  is  on  this  basis  of  the  record  and  our  long  association,  that  I  have 
reached  the  conclusion  that  I  ^vill  support  the  nomination  of  Mr,  Gray 
for  Director  of  the  FBI. 

He  has  been  serving  since  May  of  1972  as  Acting  Director  of  the 
Bureau.  Since  that  time,  he  has  been  the  object  of  some  criticism  and 
complaint.  It  is,  of  course,  the  committee's  duty  to  consider  these 
changes  further  during  the  course  of  these  hearings. 

However,  it  will  take  a  clear  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  to 
charge  my  present  judgment  on  the  nominee's  qualifications. 

Anj^one  appearing  before  this  committee  is  entitled  to  a  fair  and 
forthright  hearing,  and  I  know^,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  under  3'Our 
leadership,  that  is  exactly  the  t3^pe  of  hearing  we  shall  have  here. 
Upon  the  basis  of  these  hearings,  of  course,  we  will  make  our  recom- 
mendation to  the  Senate. 

Again  I  want  to  say  I  am  gratified  that  you  are  here  Mr.  Gra}^  and 
to  indicate  that  I  am  very  impressed  with  the  summary  of  your 
activities  since  you  undertook  the  acting  directorship  of  the  FBI. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you,  Senator  Hruska. 

Senator  Hruska.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  recess  now  until  2:30. 

(Whereupon,  at  12:30  p.m.,  the  committee  was  recessed  until  2:30 
p.m.  of  the  same  day.) 

AFTERNOON  SESSION 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Senator  Hart. 

Senator  Hart.  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Gray,  welcome.  I  was  very  late  getting  in  this  morning  and  I 
apologize.  I  was  one  of  the  few  successful  fellows  in  getting  a  doctor's 
appointment  so  I  had  to  keep  it. 

TESTIMONY  OF  LOUIS  PATEICK  GRAY  III— Eesumed 

Mr.  Gray.  You  should  today,  Senator,  they  are  precious  commodi- 
ties. 

Senator  Hart.  On  Monday,  you  were  gracious  enough  to  stop  at  the 
office  and  I  did  indicate  to  you  areas  of  concern,  shared  by  others,  I 
am  sure,  on  the  committee,  that  we  would  w-ant  to  have  developed  for 
the  record. 

Inasmuch  as  I  was  not  here  this  morning,  either  to  hear  your  state- 
ment or  the  bulk  of  the  questioning,  I  hope  I  am  not  repetitious.  If  I 
am,  please  tell  me. 

The  Senate  and  the  public  would  hope  that  these  hearings  would  be 
helpful  in  providing  information  in  two  somewhat  separate  and  dis- 
tinct areas. 

The  first  involves  your  performance  in  the  admittedly  brief  tenure  as 
Acting  Director.  Questions  there  have  been  raised  about  whether  the 
Bureau  is  becoming  more  politicall.y  responsive  to  the  White  House,  or 
at  least  more  politicized.  I  am  told  that  you  made  reference  to  that  in 
your  prepared  statement  and  I  am  sure  we  would  want  to  clarify  that 
for  the  record. 

The  second  area  the  committee  and  the  public  would  want  de- 
veloped, if  possible,  involves  really  not  you  personally  but  certainly 


56 

your  own  views  with  respect  to  it  are  important,  and  this  is  the 
structure  and  policy  of  the  Bureau,  the  organization  and  the  poUcies 
and  the  practices  of  the  Bureau.  In  this  area,  I  am  told,  there  has  been 
precious  little  congressional  oversight  since  the  early  1920's.  That  is  a 
long  time  and  the  agency  has  become  immensely  important,  and,  while 
recognizing  the  necessity  for  it,  increasingly  Americans  sense  its  poten- 
tial hurt  in  the  kind  of  free  society  we  seek  to  develop  here.  In  the 
past  few  years  there  have  been  some  suggestions  made  about  improv- 
ing some  aspects  of  the  Bureau's  operations  and  I  would  like  to  discuss 
those  with  you,  too. 

However,  it  would  seem  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  should  not  get 
at  this  time  into  the  broader  structure  and  policy  questions.  The 
questions  I  heard  of  Senator  Ervin's,  and  I  am  sure  others,  bear  on  the 
first;  namely,  the  nominee's  record  as  Acting  Director.  It  might,  for 
continuity  and  understandability,  be  better  if  we  stayed  on  the  period 
as  Acting  Director  and  the  issues  involved  there,  and  defer  the  struc- 
tural questions,  if  that  is  what  we  may  call  them,  until  later.  I  will 
proceed  that  way. 

This  morning,  when  I  was  here,  you  did  discuss  with  Senator 
Ervin  the  newsstory  that  indicated  that,  at  or  about  the  time  of  the 
Republican  Convention  in  Miami,  a  report,  or  several  FBI  reports^ 
were  shown  to  an  individual  who  was  a  potential  or  did  become  a 
grand  jury  witness.  This  bears  on  the  Watergate  as  it  had  developed 
up  to  that  point. 

You  explained  that,  while  you  were  not  in  position  to  say  that  this 
had  or  had  not  happened,  you  had  asked  John  Dean  in  the  White 
House  whether  the  story  was  correct  and  that  Mr.  Dean  said  to  you 
"I  didn't  show  them  to  the  subject  and  didn't  have  them  with  me." 
That  is  a  fair  summary? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct;  that  is  correct,  Senator. 

Senator  Hart.  Now,  tell  me  again,  help  me  to  understand,  why 
it  would  be  possible  that  a  Bureau  file  or  files  would  be  in  the  hands 
of  somebody  at  the  Republican  Convention. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  that  I  can  explain  that  a  Bureau  file 
or  files  were  in  the  possession  of  somebody  at  the  Republican  Conven- 
tion, but  I  can  start  from  ground  zero  as  I  did  this  morning  and  explain 
exactly  what  I  had  explained  to  Senator  Ervin,  which  is  essentially 
this:  That  at  the  outset  of  this  investigation  I  resolved  that  the 
investigation  would  be  very  closely  held.  There  were  those  contacts 
between  the  case  agents  working  the  case  and  the  assistant  U.S. 
attorneys  who  were  also  working  on  the  case  here  in  the  U.S.  attor- 
ney's office.  There  were  also  those  contacts  in  the  Federal  Bureau 
of  Investigation  in  the  General  Investigative  Division  which  had 
cognizance  of  this  case,  with  the  office  of  the  Assistant  Attorney 
General,  Criminal  Division,  where  the  information  was  also  closely 
held. 

Then  I  went  on  to  say  that  at  the  very  outset,  and  in  accordance 
with  standard  FBI  operating  procedures,  there  was  a  memorandum 
prepared  setting  forth  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  as  of  that 
date,  June  19,  1972,  and  accompanying  that  memorandum  was  a 
letterhead  memorandum,  which  is  a  type  of  writing  that  we  have 
in  the  Bureau,  and  a  letter  transmitting  this  memorandum  of  facts 
and  circumstances,  one  to  the  Attorney  General,  and  one  to  Mr. 
Haldeman,  and  I  nixed  that.  I  said,  "No,  we'll  not  do  this." 


57 

Then  I  went  on  to  say  that  over  the  ensuing  days  there  were  reports 
dehvered  to  Mr.  Petersen,  interviews,  you  know,  our  FD-302's, 
our  raw  interview  forms,  and  our  teletypes,  and  I  went  on  to  say  I 
would  put  a  listing  of  these  deliveries  and  the  dates  of  delivery  into 
the  record  as  an  exhibit. 

Then  I  went  on  to  say  that  on  the  19th  of  July,  it  was  requested 
by  Mr.  Dean,  acting  in  his  capacity  as  Counsel  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  and  in  discharge  of  his  responsibility,  to  inquire 
into  the  involvement  of  White  House  people  on  the  staflF  of  the 
President  in  this  matter  and  make  a  recommendation  to  the  President, 
and  that  he  wanted  a  full  report  in  writing. 

I  then  asked  for  an  opinion  of  our  Office  of  Legal  Counsel,  and  the 
opinion  came  back  that  at  our  own  initiative  we  had  no  duty  to  fur- 
nish such  a  report,  but  that  the  request  of  the  head  of  the  executive 
branch  of  the  Government  was  certainly  an  entirely  different  matter. 

Then,  on  the  following  day  I  ordered  that  a  letterhead  memorandum 
summarizing  the  investigation  to  date  be  prepared,  and  be  sent  to 
the  Attorney  General.  I  have  every  reason  to  believe,  and  I  must 
assume,  that  in  the  normal  course  of  events,  although  I  cannot  testify 
under  oath  as  a  fact,  that  this  letterhead  memorandum  was  delivered 
to  Mr.  Dean.  I  believe  it  may  have  been  but  I  cannot  testify  as  to 
the  fact  under  oath  that  it  was,  because  I  don't  know. 

Then,  following  that,  Mr.  Dean  made  a  request  to  me  that  I  pro- 
vide him  with  copies  of  our  FD-302's,  our  interview  reports,  our  tele- 
types, and  those  documents  that  had  been  made  available  to  me  in 
order  to  assist  him  in  the  performance  of  his  duties,  and  I  did. 

Then  I  said  this  morning  in  a  response  from  Senator  Ervin  when 
he  asked  me  is  it  possible  to  conclude  that  this  could  have  occurred, 
this  showing  to  Segretti,  and  I  said,  "Yes,  Senator,  it  is  possible  that 
it  could  have  occurred."  But  when  I  read  the  newsstory,  I  called 
John  Dean  and  asked  him  if  he  did  this,  and  he  said,  "No,  I  did  not 
have  any  FBI  reports  with  me  at  Miami." 

And  why  did  I  call  John  Dean?  Because  he  is  the  only  person  over 
there  who  had  custody  of  these  reports. 

Senator  Hart.  You  were  sufficiently — you  thought  the  matter 
sufficiently  serious,  and  certainly  it  was,  that  when  you  saw,  or  the 
newsstory  was  called  to  your  attention,  you  did  call  Mr.  Dean  and 
inquired  if,  in  fact,  it  had  happened? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  I  did,  Senator,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  to  more 
fully  inform  you,  every  newsstory  that  has  been  written  regarding 
this  case  we  have  checked  very,  very  carefully  just  as  an  adjunct  to 
our  own  investigative  efforts  which  preceded  some  of  these  stories  by 
as  much  as  a  month  to  6  weeks  in  time. 

Senator  Hart.  When  Mr.  Dean  said  to  you  "No,  I  did  not  do  it, 
I  didn't  have  the  FBI  reports  with  me,"  did  you  ask  him  if  he  knew 
who  might  have  had  them  with  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  because  the  thought  never  entered 

Senator  Hart.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  anybody  had  done  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  didn't,  because  the  thought  never  entered  my 
mind.  You  know  when  you  are  working  closely  with  the  office  of  the 
Presidency  the  presumption  is  one  of  regularity  in  the  conduct  of  the 
Nation's  business,  and  I  didn't  even  engage  in  the  thought  process 
that  I  would  set  up  a  presumption  here  of  illegality  and  I  didn't 
consider  it. 


58 

Senator  Hart.  There  would  have  been  illegality  or  irregularity  if, 
in  fact,  that  report  had  been  shown  to  the  man  in  Miami? 

Mr.  Gray.  Absolutely,  I  would  classify  it  as  a  grievous  and  most 
serious  breach  of  trust. 

Senator  Hart.  Except  for  asking  Mr.  Dean  did  he  or  not,  you  are 
just  presuming  regularity,  there  has  been  no  investigation  beyond 
the  inquiry  to  Mr.  Dean? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  did  not  and  I  have  got  to  engage  in  that 
presumption  in  the  position  I  am  in.  This  was  the  individual  to 
whom  I  had  given  the  reports.  I  gave  them  to  him  for  a  specific 
purpose  and  I  am  certainly  not  going  to  engage  in  a  presumption  he 
did  something  else  with  them  and  I  did  not  check  it. 

Senator  Hart.  Would  it  have  been  the  same  if  you  had  given  them 
to  me  and  I  had  told  you  that  I  had  not  given  them  to  anybody  but 
you  had  read  in  the  pai)er  I  had? 

Mr.  Gray.  If  I  were  a  member  of  the  legislative  branch  and  was  in 
the  position  such  as  I  found  myself  in  relation  to  the  President,  it 
would  have  been  the  same.  Senator. 

Senator  Hart.  Presidents  have  been  known  to  have  fallible  servants 
and  worse. 

Mr.  Gray.  This  is  true.  This  is  true. 

Senator  Hart.  Then  what  agency,  if  not  the  Bureau,  would  we 
expect  to  pursue  them? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  saw  no  reason  under  the  circumstances  to  pursue  it. 
I  asked  the  individual  to  whom  I  had  given  them.  He  could  tell 
from  the  tone  of  my  voice  I  was  really  ticked,  and  he  gave  me  what  I 
believe  to  be  an  honest  answer.  Hes  aid,  "Absolutely  not.  Under  no  cir- 
cumstances would  I  do  such  a  thing." 

Senator  Hart.  If  your  investigation  had  shown  that  somebody  in 
some  fashion  imoroperly  obtained,  from  Mr.  Dean's  desk  or  file,  that 
document,  Mr.  Dean  also  would  have  been  ticked,  I  suppose? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Hart.  But  he  would  have  kno\\Ti  whether  impropriety 
had  been  involved? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  Senator.  But  these  are  not,  you  know, 
just  documents.  These  documents  have  been  very,  very,  very 
carefully  watched  and  accounted  for,  and  inventoried  all  throughout 
the  chain.  This  was  not  a  course  of  action  that  I  even  considered  at 
the  time.  And  I  don't  consider  it  now — I  really  don't. 

Senator  Hart.  Well,  the  presumption  runs  in  favor  of  Circuit  Court 
of  Appeals  judges,  too,  and  even  there  inquiry  has  developed 
im])roprieties  on  occasions. 

^Ir.  Gray.  This  is  possible.  The  human  fallibility  is  there. 

Senator  Hart.  That  is  right.  Why  wouldn't  you  think  of  that  and 
attempt  to  determine  whether,  in  fact,  it  did  occur? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  I  didn't. 

Senator  Hart.  Why  didn't  you? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  because  I  reasoned  that  I  asked  the  man  a 
straight  question  with,  an  awful  lot  of  ire  and  hritation  in  my  voice, 
and  I  feel  I  got  a  straight  answer  back. 

Senator  Hart.  Well,  all  that  that  investigation  determined  was 
that  Mr.  Dean  didn't  do  it. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Hart.  But 

Mr.  Gray.  And  I  know 


59 

Senator  Hart.  There  are  other  possibilities.  The  kind  of  FBI 
document  that  had  been  disclosed  at  Miami  did  reach,  as  you  have 
already  told  us,  the  U.S.  attorney's  office;  they  had  copies,  the 
Justice  Department  itself  had  copies.  You  asked  Mr.  Dean  if  the 
disclosure  had  been  as  a  result  of  his  showdng  the  documents,  and 
he  said  no,  but  we  still  don't  know  whether  somebody  else  did. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  but  the  situation  was  such  that  1  made  the  decision 
on  the  scene,  at  the  time,  for  considerations  that  1  deemed  to  be 
proper,  and  it  is  a  decision  that  1  made.  It  is  a  decision  that  1  am 
accountable  for,  and  if  the  members  of  this  committee  judge  it  to 
be  an  error,  so  be  it.  1  did  not  judge  it  to  be  an  error. 

Senator  Hart.  Well,  there  is  nothing  easier  than  being  a  Alonday 
morning  quarterback,  when  the  heat  is  off  and  excitement  has  passed. 
But  if  you  had  pursued  the  investigation,  would  you  not  feel  more 
comfortable  today? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir,  because  I  think  I  would  have  gotten  essentially 
the  same  answer  from  Mr.  Dean.  I  would  have  gotten  "No,  1  did 
not  do  it.  Two,  these  were  secure  in  my  safe,  and  there  was  no  way 
they  could  get  out,  and  nobody  had  access  to  them  but  me." 

Senator  Hart.  What  would  you  think  if  you  had  asked  the  U.S. 
attorne3''s  office,  "Wliat  happened  to  yours — did  you  or  any  of  j^our 
people  misplace  them  during  the  period  they  might  have  been  shown 
to  somebody  in  Miami?" 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  did  not  consider  doing  that. 

Senator  Hart.  As  I  say,  wouldn't  you  be  more  comfortable  now 
if  3^ou  had  asked  the  Attorney  General? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  would  not  be  more  comfortable  because,  to  be 
more  comfortable,  I  would  have  had  to  engage  in  a  presumption  these 
people  were  dishonest  and  performed  an  illegal  act.  Frankl}',  1  didn't 
believe  the  allegation  then,  and  don't  believe  it  now. 

Senator  Hart.  They  would  have  done  nothing  illegal  if  somebody 
had  filched  a  file  from  them  and  showed  it  to  somebody. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  it  is  a  serious  breach  of  trust,  and  I  don't  think 
it  is  conduct  of  the  kind 

Senator  Hart.  What  about  Segretti  himself?  Do  3'ou  think  that  it 
would  have  been  desirable  to  ask  him  who  showed  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  didn't  consider  that,  either.  I  don't  think  an}'  of 
my  investigators 

Senator  Hart.  We  never  will  know  whether  that  happened? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  There  may  be  an  opportunity  later  on.  I 
don't  know  what  the  investigation  is  going  to  show  as  it  continues,  you 
know.  There  are  still  some  steps  to  be  taken,  as  j'-ou  know,  Senator. 

Senator  Hart.  Well,  after  a  brilliant  9  months  as  a  U.S.  attorney 
in  Detroit,  I  am  just  going  to  say  I  think  a  U.S.  attorney,  dealing 
with  an  agent  with  a  presentation  like  that,  might  have  said  "Why 
don't  you  ask  those  fellows?" 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  suffice  it  to  say  that  no  one  sent  an}^  type  of  a 
recommendation  to  me  that  we  do  this  sort  of  thing.  I  think  if  anybody 
in  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  or  in  the  Criminal  Di^^sion, 
or  in  the  U.S.  attorney's  office,  had  thought  that  we  should  pursue 
this,  that  suggestion  would  have  been  made  to  me.  I  made  the  decision 
as  soon  as  I  read  the  newspaper  article — and  I  can  remember  reading 
it — to  call  Air.  Dean  immediately'.  And  I  am  satisfied 


60 

Senator  Hart.  That  is  why,  on  a  Monday  morning,  it  seems  so 
strange.  You  recognized  the  newspaper  was  reporting  an  illegal  action. 
It  could  have  involved  a  number  of  people  apparently.  You  called 
one,  and  he  said  "I  didn't  do  it."  But  even  now  we  don't  know  what 
these  other  fellows,  who  had  the  documents,  did. 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  who  would  have  been  the  most  obvious  person 
to  have  done  something  like  that  if  it  was  done?  It  wouldn't  be  in  the 
U.S.  attorney's  office,  it  wouldn't  be  in  the  Criminal  Division,  it  would 
have  been  somebody  outside  of  that  gamut,  you  know,  unless  it  was 
somebody  who,  well,  was  a  fellow  really  grabbing  those  papers.  I  say 
to  you  again  that  I  considered  all  the  factors,  I  made  the  decision,  and 
I  am  accountable  for  the  decision;  I  would  likely  make  the  same 
decision  again. 

Senator  Hart.  But  you  are  left,  as  you  replied  to  Senator  Ervin,  in 
a  position  where  you  cannot  either  affirm  or  deny  that  the  thing 
occurred. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  cannot. 

Senator  Hart.  In  the  discussion  with  Senator  Ervin  involving  Mr. 
Segretti — my  notes  seem  to  suggest  here — you  said  you  investigated 
him  for  possible  criminal  action  but  did  not  investigate  alleged 
political  activities.  Now,  as  I  get  it,  Segretti's  name  came  up  when 
leads  involving  Watergate  figures  were  being  followed,  and  at  some 
point  in  that  Watergate  story  there  were  suggestions  that  Segretti  had 
sabotaged  the  presidential  campaign,  or  had  sought  to  engage  people 
who  were  alleged  to  have  left  false  messages  and  infiltrated,  and  so  on. 
Is  that  what  you  meant  by  political  activity  of  Segretti? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  that  is  what  I  meant,  Senator.  And  actually,  you 
know,  we  interviewed  Segretti  very  early  in  the  game,  on  the  26th  of 
June,  and  when  these  newspaper  accounts  came  out,  this  was  new 
information  to  us  because  these  were  things  that  Mr.  Segretti  had 
not  told  us.  What  I  did  at  that  time  was  to  ask  once  again  my  Office 
of  Legal  Counsel  whether  or  not  on  the  basis  of  the  information  made 
available  to  us,  Segretti  had  committed  any  offenses  within  our 
jurisdiction.  That  opinion  was,  no.  But  I  still  said,  "Check  with  the 
Department  of  Justice."  That  opinion  came  back,  no,  and  we  were  not 
directed  to  do  any  further  investigation  over  on  this  side  of  the  fence 
with  regard  to  whatever  Segretti  was  doing  in  answering — in  asking 
questions,  setting  up  any  kind  of  a  network,  or  whatever  it  was,  he 
didn't  tell  us  about  it.  The  only  thing  we  had  to  go  on  was  the  news- 
paper accounts  of  what  he  was  alleged  to  have  been  doing.  But  we 
made  the  checks  in  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  because  I 
knew  this  question  was  going  to  come  up,  and  I  wanted  to  meet  it 
head  on,  and  we  did. 

Senator  Hart.  So  far  as  you  know,  did  anybody  investigate  Segretti 
with  respect  to  the  so-called  political  activity  including  the  infiltration 
and  espionage  and  so  on  of  a  political  campaign? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  however  you  want  to  characterize  it,  we  did 
not  interview  Segretti  or  investigate  into  any  of  the  political  machina- 
tions in  which  he  is  alleged  to  have  indulged. 

We  interviewed  him  on  the  basis  that  he  participated  in  Watergate 
or  he  didn't.  He  fell  within  the  IOC  statute,  intercepted  communica- 
tion statute,  or  he  didn't. 


61 

Senator  Hart.  Wiiat  if  some  of  those  other  activities  involved  the 
CoiTiij)t  Practices  Act  or  Federal  campaign  laws,  but  did  not  involve 
Watergate? 

Mr.  Gray.  Certainly  under  those  cases  I  would  have  assumed  that 
the  Department  of  Justice  would  have  said  yes. 

First,  I  would  have  assumed  that  my  own  Office  of  Legal  Counsel 
would  have  said,  "Yes,  there  is  sufficient  information  here  to  establish 
that  he  falls  within  the  perimeter  of  the  statute  and  we  should  in- 
vestigate it." 

Then  I  would  assume  that  the  Department  would  have  given  me 
such  opinion.  On  the  basis  of  the  information  I  had,  I  don't  think  any 
opinion  to  investigate  it  would  have  been  justified. 

Senator  Hart.  In  an  answer  to  Senator  Ervin,  and  in  your  answer 
to  my  question  raising  the  same  fact,  you  said  that,  earlier  in  the 
investigation  of  Watergate,  a  letter,  a  summary  of  the  case  to  date, 
something  like  that,  had  come  up  through  regular  channels  to  you, 
and  one  was  addressed  to  the  Attorney  General  and  the  other  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Haldeman. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  sir,  and  I  also  said  that  it  came  up 
through  the  channels  without  any  initiation  or  instigation  on  my  part. 
It  was  part  of  standard  operating  procedure  within  the  FBI, 

Senator  Hart.  Is  it  still  standard? 

Mr.  Gray.  To  do  what? 

Senator  Hart.  To  have  a  summary  of  progress  in  a  criminal 
investigation? 

Mr,  Gray.  Yes,  it  would  be,  but  in  this  case ■ 

Senator  Hart.  Reported  to  the  White  House? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  it  would  be.  But  in  this  particular  investigation  at 
this  particular  time,  I  wanted  to  hold  every  single  thing  as  close  as 
I  could  hold  it,  and  during,  as  it  turned  out,  during  the  first  week 
there  were  two  leaks 

Senator  Hart.  I  am  not  a  good  questioner,  but  I  must  be  especially 
bad  today.  That  answer  would  suggest  to  me  that  every  FBI  progress 
report  finds  a  copj^  sent  to  the  Wliite  House,  and  I  know  you  clon't 
mean  that. 

Mr.  Gray.  No. 

Senator  Hart.  I  am  trying  to  find  out  why. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  talking  about  the  major  cases. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  have  order. 

Mr.  Gray.  Wliat  we  call  major  special  cases.  We  don't  send  that 
information  over  all  the  time,  but  in  a  major  special  case  the  White 
House  is  kept  informed  of  progress ;  or  if  the  case  happens  to  involve, 
let's  say,  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  the  Department  of  HEW, 
the  Secretary  is  kept  informed.  There  are  cases,  however,  Senator 
Hart,  in  which  we  make  a  decision  not  to  keep  people  informed  for 
reasons  of  our  own  choosing  because  we  think  that  leaks  might  occur. 

This  very  often  happens  in  cases  involving  fraud  against  the  Govern- 
ment, for  example.  This  is  a  specific  example.  We  protect  what  we 
call  in  the  FBI  the  Bureau's  investigative  interests. 

Senator  Hart.  At  some  stage  there  was  concern  that  the  White 
House  was  concerned  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  there  was  the  possibility  right  on  the  first  day, 
as  I  testified  earlier  this  morning. 

91-831 — 73 5 


62 

Senator  Hart.  Why  would  it  be  normal 

The  Chairman.  Phil,  let  him  answer. 

Mr.  Gray.  As  I  testified  earlier  this  morning-,  3:45  p.m..  Pacific 
daylight  time,  when  we  in  the  FBI  learned  that  Mr.  McCord  was 
the  secmity  officer  of  the  Committee  To  Re-Elect  the  President,  that 
right  away  posed  the  possibility  that  we  had  a  very  touchy  situation 
on  our  hands,  no  question  about  it;  we  were  very  well  aware  of  it. 
Senator  Hart.  Aware  that  it  might  involve  the  White  House? 
Mr.  Gray.  Yes. 

Senator  Hart.  Why  would  this  flow  of  information  go  to  the  White 
House? 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  investigators  who  start  this  process  down  at  the 
bottom,  not  being,  perhaps — and  I  am,  you  know,  engaging  in  sj)ecu- 
lation  now — not  being,  perhaps,  as  knowledgeable  as  the  u[)per  level, 
proceeded  in  the  standard  BiuTau  manner. 

I  have  alread}'  offered,  and  the  offer  was  acce])ted  this  morning,  to 
introduce  those  documents  into  evidence,  and  they  would  be  a  ])art 
of  the  record.  I  stopped  it.  That  is  part  of  the  thing,  Senator  Hart, 
that  I  think  I  am  paid  to  do  u})  there,  to  exercise  some  judgment,  and  I 
think  I  exercised  that  judgment  in  that  particular  instance. 

Senator  Hart.  W^ell,  in  order  to  stop  the  possibility  of  leaks,  and 
you  Avere  concerned  about  the  i)ossibility,  you  felt  that  the  letter  ought 
not  be  sent  to  Mr.  Haldeman? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  didn't  even  think  it  ought  to  be  sent  to  the  Attorney 
General.  I  stopped  both  of  them. 

Senator  Hart.  Why  didn't  you  haA^e  the  same  unease  with  respect 
to  the  possibility  of  the  leaks  of  the  FBI  reports  that  3'ou  asked  ^Ir. 
Dean  about? 

Mr.  Gray.  There  were  several  reasons.  One  of  them,  of  course,  is 
the  presumption  of  regularity  that  I  spoke  about  earlier,  plus  the  fact 
that  some  30  or  more  days  had  trans])ired,  and  we  hit  with  the  in- 
vestigative shock  effect  that  we  wanted  to  hit  with,  so  there  are  two 
very  good  reasons,  and  no  reason  to  assume  that  Mr.  Dean  was  going 
to  turn  right  around  and  do  what  he  is  alleged  to  have  done  or  what  is 

alleged  to  have  been  done  in  the  Segretti  case.  There  were 

Senator  Hart.  I  am  not  even  suggesting  that  Dean  did  it.  I  am  just 
suggesting  there  are  others  who,  it  might  have  occurred  to  me,  it  "\\  ould 
have  been  wise  to  follow  up. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  told  you,  Senator  Hart,  we  did  begin  to  loosen  up  and 
we  did  begin  to  send  investigators  in  and  we  did  have  contact  with  the 
Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  so  information  Mas  flowing  in  the  normal 
Bureau  investigative  process. 

Mr.  Petersen,  who  is  the  Assistant  Attorney  General  in  charge  of 
the  Criminal  Division,  tells  me  in  the  earl}"  days  onl}^  he  and  his  Spe- 
cial Assistant  had  access  to  the  information  that  I  was  providing  him. 
Senator  Hart.  In  the  course  of  the  W^atergate  investigation,  did 
3'OU,  from  investigators  under  you  in  the  Bureau,  or  through  the  U.S. 
Attorney's  Office,  have  requests  or  recommendations  that  the  Bureau 
interAdew  particular  people? 

Mr.  Gray.  Very  few  of  them,  very  few  of  them,  because  I  tiu'ned 
the  Bureau  loose,  as  I  testified  this  morning.  I  pushed  the  button,  I 
said,  "No  holds  barred,  give  it  the  full  court  press,"  and  they  didn't 
have  to  come  around  every  time  they  wanted  to  interview  somebody 
and  ask  me  and  they  didn't  do  it,  Senator. 


63 

Senator  Hart.  Except  on  a  few  occasions? 

\lr.  Gray.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Hart,  ^^^lat  were  those? 

Mr.  Gray.  One  of  them,  I  think — the  matter  of  whether  or  not 
to  interview  John  Ehriichman  came  up  and,  of  course,  you  know  tliis 
is  getting  pretty  high,  and  they  thought  they  had  better  get  the  boss' 
permission  before  they  went  that  high,  and  I  checked  ^^'ith  Assistant 
Attorney  General  Petersen  and  I  said,  "Go." 

Senator  Byrd.  You  said  what? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  checked  witli  Assistant  Attorney  General  Petersen 
and  said  "Go." 

Senator  Hart.  Was  there  anyone  not  a  Government  official  where 
they  questioned  you  or  said  should  the^^  speak  to  that  person? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  recommended  to  me  that  the}^  interview? 

Senator  Hart.  Or  a  person  they  asked  to  interview? 

Mr.  Gray.  None  that  I  can  think  of.  Maj^be  if  you  tell  me  the 
name  of  the  person  you  have  in  mind  I  may  be  able  to  help  a^ou. 
Senator,  because  there  were  several  things  that  came  up  where  I 
momentarily  said,  "Stop  until  I  check  this  out  to  see  what  kind  of  a 
trail  we  ^\'ill  cross,"  anil  it  had  nothing  to  do  \\'ith  politics.  It  had  to 
do  with  national  security.  But  I  ^\-ill  tell  3'ou  the  names  of  those 
people.  But  if  3'ou  tell  me  the  name  of  the  person  3'ou  have  in  mind, 
I  can  maybe  be  more  helpful. 

Senator  Hart.  Xo;  it  just  occurred  to  me  that,  in  as  dramatic  a 
case  as  this,  there  might  have  been  highly  sensitive  although  non- 
governmental individuals  who  some  agent  thought  might  be  able  to 
provide  some  information  but  because  of  the  sensitivity  of  the  person 
he  would  go  to  you. 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  some  of  those  I  initiated  on  ni}^  own,  as  I  read 
certain  reports,  where  I  said  to  hold  up  until  we  check  this  out  because 
of  the  fact  there  might  have  been  some  national  security  overtones 
involving  another  agency.  Then  when  I  got  clarification  and  assurance 
that  this  did  not  exist,  we  went  ahead. 

Very  simply,  part  of  that  was  involved  with  the  $89,000.  We  ran 
that  down,  we  ran  it  do\\'n  early  in  the  game. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  speaking  of  the  CIA  now? 

Mr.  Gray.   Yes;  I  am,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Senator  Hart.  I  take  it  your  concern  about  a  possible  CIA  lead 
would  relate  to  national  security?  Do  I  so  understand  that? 

Mr.  Gray.   Yes,  Senator;  that  is  true. 

Senator  Hart.  But  what  I  am  attempting  to  get  is  the  name  of, 
the  identification  of,  anyone  in  addition  to  Mr.  Ehriichman,  whether 
in  or  out  of  Government,  investigators  of  yours  came  to  you  and 
said,  "I  think  we  ought  to  see  him  or  her,"  and  did  j^ou  condition 
approval  or  did  you  deny  approval? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  never  denied  any  requests  at  all. 

I  placed  no  restriction  or  limitation  other  than  these  I  have  men- 
tioned where  I  said,  "Pause  until  we  check  and  then  we  will  crank  up 
speed,"  but  here  is  what  I  will  do,  Senator  Hart.  I  will  check  the 
record  again  with  our  investigators  to  ascertain  from  them  one  more 
time  if  there  is  anybody  they  had  in  mind  to  interview  that  they 
either  recommended  to  me  or  did  not  recommend  to  me. 


64 

I  cannot  think  of  one,  I  cannot  think  of  one  now.  We  will  check  the 
record  and  we  will  supply  information  in  res]3onse. 

Senator  Hart.  Would  3"ou  make  the  same  check  with  res]:)ect  to 
any  proposed  documentary  investigations  that  might  have  been 
suggested  to  you,  such  as  phone  records  and  bank  accounts? 

Air.  Gray.  Phone  records  and  bank  accounts? 

Senator  Hart.  Phone  records  and  bank  accounts. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  I  know  there  was  a  rumor  running  around,  and  I 
would  like  to  address  myself  to  this.  It  was  that  the  first  week  Gray 
was  going  to  collapse  this  investigation  in  24  or  48  hours,  and  that 
Gray  was  not  going  to  permit  his  agents  to  subpena  Colson's  toll 
calls. 

Senator  Hart.  Colson's  what? 

Mr.  Gray.  Colson's  toll  calls  at  the  White  House,  and  I  called  the 
Washington  field  agents  into  my  office  on  Saturday,  June  24,  and  I 
told  them  these  leaks  appeared  in  the  paper  and  I  called  them  in  and 
said,  "One,  you  know  that  both  are  false;  two,  you  know  that  agents 
of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  cannot  suffer  from  flapjaw. 
We  cannot  talk  and  gossip  about  our  cases,"  and  I  literally  put  my 
track  shoes  in  their  back,  and  then  again  I  gave  them  a  strong  verbal 
direction  that  we  were  going  to  press  this  investigation  to  the  hilt. 

On  the  same  morning  I  was  apprised  that  rumors  were  running 
around  town  that  INIr.  Lawrence  O'Brien  was  unhai)py  with  the 
FBI,  that  we  were  dragging  our  feet.  I  picked  ui)  the  telephone  and 
called  ^Jr.  O'Brien  and  Mr.  O'Brien  told  me  he  was  not  unhappy  at 
all,  that  we  were  all  over  the  place  and  he  was  very  happy  the  way  we 
were  pursuing  this. 

So  you  may  have  had  reference  to  the  Colson  toll  call  records.  I 
don't  know  whether  you  did  or  not.  I  don't  know  whether  you  had 
reference  to  the  24-  to  48-hour  collapse,  but.  Senator,  I  am  going  to 
answer  e^^ery  question  you  want  me  to  answer,  and  I  am  going  to 
answer  it  for  you  straight. 

Senator  Hart.  Well,  you  promised  to  provide  for  the  record 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Hart  (continuing).  The  names  of  individuals  in  and  out  of 
Government  with  whom  an  interview^  Avas  suggested  and  3'ou  either 
said  no,  or  attached  a  condition  to  it.  And  will  j'ou  do  the  same  with 
respect  to  documentary  investigating  materials? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  I  will  be  pleased  to  do  that. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document:) 

Mr.  Gray.  After  researching  the  matter,  Senator  Hart,  I  find  that  the  only 
restrictions  which  I  phiced  upon  any  of  the  investigation,  either  interviews  or 
relative  to  documentary  materials,  were  on  account  of  national  security 
considerations.  These  considerations  were  resolved  within  a  very  short  period  of 
time  and  all  interviews  which  were  desired  were  conducted  and  all  documentary 
material  which  we  wanted  to  review  was  obtained. 

Senator  Hart.  Now,  you  talked  to  Mr.  Dean  in  the  White  House 
about  this  case;  you  talked  to  the  Assistant  Attorney  General  in 
charge  of  the  Criminial  Division,  I  suppose? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Hart.  With  the  Attorney  General  at  the  time? 

Mr.  Gray.  With  the  Attorney  General  at  the  time? 

Senator  Hart.  In  the  course  of  the  Watergate  investigation,  did 
you  discuss  the  course  of  the  investigation  with  the  Attorney  General 
or  prospects  as  you  saw  them? 


65 

Mr.  Gray.  I  didn't  discuss  with  him  as  to  how  I  was  to  conduct 
this  investigation  other  than  tlie  early  days.  The  first  day,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  June  17,  when  I  gave  the  orders  that  it  was  to  be  aggressively 
pursued,  this  report  was  made  to  him  b}^  my  No.  2,  and  he  agreed 
with  it,  to  pursue  it  aggressively.  At  no  time  did  I  receive  any 
direction  from  him  as  to  how  to  conduct  the  investigation;  but,  3-es, 
I  did  make  progress  reports  to  him. 

Senator  Hart.  Did  a^ou  discuss  the  course  of  the  investigation  or 
the  prospects  with  the  former  Attorney  General,  Mr.  Mitchell? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not. 

Senator  Hart.  Did  you  discuss  the  course  or  prospects  of  the  in- 
vestigation with  anyone  not  working  either  full-time  for  the  Wliite 
House  or  the  Department  of  Justice? 

Mr.  Gray.  Gee,  that  is  a  pretty  broad  question. 

I  don't  know  to  whom  you  would  be  referring. 

Senator  Hart.  Anybody  outside  of  Government? 

Mr.  Gray.  1  can  think  of  newspaper  men,  I  can  think  of  visitors — 
and  I  would  have  to  review  that,  but  my  natural  inclination  is  to 
answer  no,  that  I  would  have  no  reason  to  do  this.  In  fact,  in  all  the 
press  availabilities  and  all  the  rest  of  it,  I  was  first  under  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  regulations  of  the  Department  and  then  under  Judge 
Sirica's  order  so  m}^  natural  inclination  is  no.  But  that  is  such  a  broad 
question  I  hesitate  to  answer  it,  but  j^et  I  will  answer  it,  no. 

Senator  Hart.  I  could  narrow  it,  I  suppose,  by  saying,  excludmg 
newspaper  and  media  people? 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  1  did  talk  procedurally,  3^ou  Imow,  in  nw  press 
availabilities.  1  w^ould  tell  them  how  1  was  domg. 

Senator  Hart.  Yes,  but  I  am  now  excluding  the  media. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes. 

Senator  Hart.  But  including,  by  wa}^  of  suggestion,  not  to  make  it 
multicategory,  persons  who  had  an  association  neither  with  the 
Wliite  House  nor  the  Department  but  with  the  Committee  to  Re- 
elect the  President? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Hart.  Like  Republican  Party  officials. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  indeed.  No,  indeed. 

Senator  Hart.  1  have  a  note  here  on  the  Ehrlichman  letter.  Could 
you  provide  us  with  information  regarding  the  request  which  the 
FBI  relayed  from  the  White  House  to  the  FBI  field  offices  asking  for 
information  on  local  law  and  order  issues  relative  to  the  campaign? 

Let  me  enumerate  the  items  and  it  may  be  that  you  will  want  to 
provide  them  for  the  record:  The  text  of  the  request  from  Mr.  Ehrlich- 
man or  his  assistant,  and  I  am  told  it  was  his  assistant;  any  mternal 
FBI  memorandum  or  comment  regarding  whether  or  how^  the  request 
would  be  implemented;  the  text  of  the  message  which  w^ent  out  to  the 
field  offices;  and  the  text  of  the  material  furnished  to  the  \^Tiite  House 
or  Justice  Department  for  transmittal  to  the  White  House. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  I  would  be  glad  to  do  that.  Senator.  In  fact, 
this  morning  I  got  Senator  Ervin's  permission  to  put  that  type  of 
material  in  the  record  and  I  believe  the  only  exception  would  be  the 
response  of  the  White  House  and  we  will  provide  that. 


66 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documents:) 

Memorandum 

September  8,  1972. 
To  L.  Patrick  Gray,  Director,  FBI. 
From  Ralpli  E.  Erickson,  Deputy  Attorney  General. 

Subject:  Information  for  Campaign  Trips:  Events  and  Issues  (Attached  White 
House  ^Memorandum) . 
Would  you  undertake  to  evaluate'the  questions  asked  of  us  by  John  Ehrlichman 
in  the  attached  memorandum  and  give  me  the  benefit  of  3'our  response. 

Although  we  are  be.vond  the  due  date  of  this  memorandum  already,  please  make 
your  response  as  quickly  as  possible. 

The  White  House, 
Washinglon,  D.C.,  September  1,  1972. 

Memoraudum  for  the  Deputy  Attorney  General. 

Subject :  Information  for  Oampaign  Trips  :  Events  and  Issues. 

In  order  for  John  Ehrlichman  to  give  the  President  maximum  svipport  during 
campaign  trips  over  the  next  several  weeks,  the  following  information  is  required 
for  each  of  the  States  listed  at  Tab  A. 

(1)  Identification  of  the  substantive  issue  problem  areas  in  the  criminal  justice 
field  for  that  particular  state.  Please  limit  yourself  to  problems  of  sufficient 
magnitude  that  the  President  or  John  Ehrlichman  might  be  expected  to  be  aware 
of  them.  Brevity  is  the  key,  and  often  all  tliat  is  necessarj'  is  to  flag  a  sensitive 
problem  so  it  can  be  avoided  or  more  extensive  jjreparation  can  be  undertaken 
should  we  choose  to  speak  about  it. 

(2)  k  list  of  events  relating  to  the  criminal  justice  area  that  would  be  good  for 
John  Ehrlichman  to  consider  doing.  For  each  suggested  event,  the  following 
items  should  be  indicated: 

(A)  Purpose  of  tlie  event. 

(B)  The  nature  of  the  group  or  institution  involved. 

(C)  The  content  of  the  event. 

(D)  Names  of  specific  peojjle  who  can  be  contacted  for  the  purpose  of 
setting  it  up  (tf)gether  with  titles,  addresses,  telephone  numbers,  etc.). 

(E)  All  trade-off  factors  to  be  considered  in  scheduling  the  event. 

I  am  receiving  separate  materials  from  both  LEAA  and  DALE,  so  you  should 
omit  any  consideration  of  problems  in  the  area  of  Federal  aid  or  drugs.  I  would 
expect  your  list  of  problems  to  be  fairly  brief,  but  there  are  certainly  criminal 
justice  problems  (such  as  the  Fort  Worth  Five)  that  we  should  flag  for  the 
President. 

I  know  this  is  rushing  you,  but  I  need  the  information  by  close  of  business, 
Thursday,  September  7,  1972. 


Thanks,  Ralph. 


Geoff  Shepard. 


California  (San  Francisco  and  Los  New  Jersey 

Angeles)  New  York  City 

Connecticut  Ohio 

Florida  Pennsylvania  (Philadelphia  and 

Georgia  CAtlanta)  Pittsburgh) 

Illinois  (Chicago)  South  Dakota 

Massachusetts  Tennessee 

Michigan  Texas  (San  Antonio) 
Missouri  (Kansas  City) 

9/8/72 
(Teletype)  (Plaintext)  (Immediate) 
To  SACS 

San  Francisco  Kansas  City 

Los  Angeles  Newark 

New  Haven  New  York  City 

IVIiami  Cleveland 

Tampa  Cincinnati 

Jacksonville  Pliiladelphia 

Atlanta  Pittsburgli 

Chicago  Minneapolis 

Boston  Knoxville 

Detroit  Memphis 
San  Antonio 


67 

From  Acting  Director,  FBI 
Inquiry  From  White  House 

Following  memorandum  received  from  Wliite  House: 

"In  order  for  John  Ehrlichman  to  give  President  maximum  support  during 
campaign  trips  over  the  next  several  weeks,  the  following  inforination  is  required 
for  each  of  the  states  listed. 

(1)  Identification  of  the  substantive  issue  problem  areas  in  the  criminal  justice 
field  for  that  particular  state.  Please  limit  yourself  to  problems  of  sufficient 
magnitude  that  the  President  or  John  Ehrlichman  might  be  expected  to  be  aware 
of  them.  Brevity  is  the  key,  and  often  all  that  is  necessary  is  to  flag  a  sensitive 
problem  so  it  can  be  avoided  or  more  extensive  preparation  can  be  undertaken 
should  we  choose  to  speak  about  it. 

(2)  A  list  of  events  relating  to  the  criminal  justice  area  that  would  be  good  for 
John  Ehrlichman  to  consider  doing.  For  each  suggested  event,  the  following  items 
should  be  indicated: 

(A)  Purpose  of  the  event. 

(B)  The  nature  of  the  group  or  institution  involved. 

(C)  The  content  of  the  event. 

(D)  Names  of  specific  people  who  can  be  contacted  for  the  purpose  of 
setting  it  up  (together  with  titles,  addres-;es,  telephone  numl^ers,  etc.); 

(E)  All  trade-off  factors  to  be  considered  in  scheduling  the  event. 
"Receiving  separate  materials  from  both  LEAA  and  DALE,  so  you  should 

omit  any  consideration  of  problems  in  the  area  of  federal  aid  or  drugs.  Would 
expect  your  list  of  problems  to  be  fairly  Ijrief,  but  there  are  certainly  criminal 
justice  prt)blems  (such  as  the  Fort  Worth  Five)  that  we  should  flag  for  the 
President." 

In  accordance  with  above,  you  should  submit  Ijy  immediate  teletype  to  be 
received  by  the  Bureau  no  later  than  eight  A.M.,  Monday,  September  eleventh 
pertinent  material  which  should  include  matters  pertaining  to  gun  control  legisla- 
tion, corruption  in  police  departments,  probation  and  parole,  etc.  Deadline  must 
be  met. 


U.S.  Government — Memorandum 

Seplemher  11,  1972. 
To  Mr.  Bishop. 
From  M.  A.  Jones. 
Subject:  Events  and  issues  (attached  White  House  memorandum) 

In  accordance  with  the  request  contained  in  referenced  memorandum,  there  is 
attached  material  from  various  field  divisions  and  offices  of  this  Bureau  for  con- 
sideration. This  material  has  been  broken  down  by  state  and  locality  to  conform 
with  the  listing  submitted  by  the  White  House. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(1)  That  the  attached  material  be  approved  for  transmittal  to  the  White  House 
through  the  Department. 

(2)  That  after  approval,  this  memorandum  and  attachments  be  returned  to 
your  (Mr.  Bishop's)  office  for  transmittal  to  the  office  of  Ralph  E.  Erickson 
Deputy  Attorney  General. 

Enclosures. 

CALIFORNIA 

A  number  of  California  Sheriffs  are  planning  protests  with  U.S.  Attorne}' 
General  and  possibly  airing  views  to  news  media  re  fact  Civil  Rights  Division, 
U.S.  Department  of  Justice,  instituted  August  2.3,  1972,  due  process  civil  rights 
investigations  of  county  jails  in  12  major  counties  in  California  on  allegation 
pretrial  detainees'  treatment  in  all  California  County  Jails  may  constitute 
Federal  violation.  These  investigations  currently  in  progress. 

Ray  Davis,  Chief  of  Police,  Walnut  Creek,  California,  and  President  California 
Chapter  of  the  International  Association  Chiefs  of  Police,  directed  a  letter  to 
Attorney  General  Richard  Kleindienst  August  1.5,  1972,  expressing  concern  over 
the  remarks  made  by  B.  H.  Holman,  Director,  Communitj^  Relations  Service, 
U.S.  Department  of  Justice,  at  the  National  Convention  of  Police  and  Com- 
munity Relations  (PCR)  officers  recently  held  in  San  Francisco.  Holman  urged 
PCR  men  to  resist  all  efforts  by  heads  of  their  res|)ective  agencies  to  "whitewash" 
PCR  programs  and  turn  the  men  into  public  relations  officers  to  make  their  re- 
spective departments  look  good. 


68 

San  Francisco  Bay  area  police  officers  are  resentful  over  actions  of  U.S.  Govern- 
ment, in  indicting  12  Alameda  County  deputies,  who  took  part  in  restoring  order  in 
1969  Berkeley  riots,  for  civil  rights  violations. 

SheriflP  Richard  Hongisto,  newly  elected  Sheriff  in  San  Francisco  County,  is  a 
controversial  figure  who  has  ideas  on  law  enforcement  and  prison  reform  which  do 
not  agree  with  those  of  other  law  enforcement  officials  and/or  Bay  area  judges. 
Hongisto  was  supported  b}'  and  associated  with  the  homosexual  communitj' 
during  his  recent  election. 

During  the  past  several  years  California  has  experienced  a  large  increase  in 
pornographic  trafficking.  The  production,  distribution,  and  sale  of  pornographic 
film  and  literature  have  continued  to  increase.  This  increase  is  based  on  the 
"favorable  climate"  within  California,  i.e.,  the  lax  attitude  of  local,  state  and 
Federal  judges  as  well  as  recent  Supreme  Court  decision. 

The  California  Chapter,  FBI  National  Academy  Associates,  meets  September 
17-20,  1972,  Palo  Alto,  California: 

(A)  To  bring  together  FBI  National  Academy  Associates  throughout  the 
State  of  California. 

(B)  Law  enforcement  officers  who  are  graduates  of  the  FBI  National  Academy. 

(C)  To  discuss  current  law  enforcement  problems  peculiar  to  the  State  of 
California. 

(D)  Chief  John  Fabri,  First  Vice  President,  Chief  of  Police,  Fremont,  Cali- 
fornia, telephone  796-3232.  Estimated  attendance  200. 

National  Conference  of  Metropolitan  Courts,  October  11-13,  1972,  Mark 
Hopkins  Hotel,  San  Francisco: 

(A)  National  Convention  of  Judges  from  the  Metropolitan  Courts. 

(B)  Municipal  Court  judges  meeting  throughout  the  United  States. 

(C)  To  discuss  problems  Municipal  Courts  are  confronted  with. 

(D)  Judge  Ray  Arata,  President,  Superior  Court,  16.5  City  Hall,  San  Francisco, 
California.  Estimated  attendance  200. 

CONNECTICUT 

Connecticut  is  a  state  which  houses  the  principal  manufacturers  of  firearms  in 
the  country,  and  consequent!}'  the  question  of  gun  control  legislation  would  be 
of  keen  interest  to  many  of  the  residents  of  the  state,  many  of  whom  are  employed 
b}'  aforementioned  manufacturers. 

FLORIDA 

The  State  of  Florida  has  convened  a  special  House  Committee  on  Capital 
Punishment  in  Tallahassee,  Florida,  to  consider  the  legal  aspects  of  restoring  the 
death  penalty  in  Florida.  The  Attorney  General  of  Florida  in  a  memorandum  to 
Governor  Reubin  Askew  dated  July  7,  1972,  made  an  analysis  of  the  Supreme 
Court  decision  of  June  29,  1972,  in  "JFurman  vs.  Georgia,  et  al,"  abolishing  capital 
punishment.  The  Attorney  General  recommended  the  creation  of  a  special  com- 
mittee to  consider  all  aspects  of  the  death  penalty  in  Florida  and  possible  new 
legislation  concerning  this  matter.  Hearings  were  held  at  Raiford  State  Peniten- 
tiary during  August,  1972,  Vv^here  six  death  row  inmates  related  that  as  far  as 
they  were  concerned  capital  punishment  was  not  a  deterrent  and  two  of  the  six 
stated  they  would  rather  die  than  spend  the  rest  of  their  lives  behind  bars  with 
no  hope  of  parole. 

The  special  House  Committee  on  Capital  Punishment  on  August  31,  1972,  Vjy 
five  to  one  vote,  voted  to  look  into  legal  means  to  reinstate  the  death  penalty  for 
certain  crimes  but  rejected  generally  the  suggestion  that  life  sentences  be  given 
for  certain  crimes  with  no  possibility  of  parole. 

Additional  hearings  will  be  held  "throughout  the  State  of  Florida  during  Sep- 
tember and  October  so  that  final  recommendations  for  legislation  might  be  pre- 
pared in  time  for  a  special  one-day  session  called  by  Governor  Askew  on  November 
14,  1972,  to  consider  legislation  relating  to  the  death  penalty.  Several  prefiled 
bills  have  been  introduced  into  the  Florida  Legislature,  which  provided  prosecu- 
tion for  certain  offenses  originally  punishable  by  death  in  Florida. 

There  is  considerable  interest  in  recent  efforts  to  remove  Sheriff  Willis  V. 
McCall  of  Lake  County,  Florida. 

By  way  of  background,  Governor  Askew  ordered  an  investigation  into  the 
April  23,  1972,  death  of  Tommy  Vickers  in  the  Lake  County  Jail.  Vickers  was  a 
mentally  retarded  Negro  who  was  in  the  Lake  County  Jail  on  a  minor  traffic 
violation  and  subsequently  died  of  comijlications  caused  by  a  blow  to  the  stomach. 
A  grand  jury  in  Orange  County,  Florida,  returned  an  indictment  against  McCall 
on  June  12,  1972,  charging  him  with  simple  assault  and  second  degree  murder. 


69 

Governor  Askew  immediately  ordered  the  suspen.-iion  of  McCall  and  trial  was 
scheduled  for  August  I'l,   1972,  after  McCall  pled  not  guilty  to  the  indictment. 

On  August  19,  1972,  McCall  was  found  innocent  by  a  six-member  jury  who 
deliberated  only  one  hour  and  fifteen  minutes.  ]McCall  remains  under  suspension, 
but  is  running  for  re-election  November  7,  1972. 

McCall  has  long  been  an  extremely  controversial  figure  and  interest  ran  high 
in  the  charges  and  subsequent  trial  of  McCall  throughout  Florida,  but  particu- 
larly in  the  area  around  Lake  County.  Because  of  the  intense  interest  in  McCall 
and  the  fact  that  he  has  been  involved  in  numerous  problems  relating  to  law  en- 
forcement and  his  relationship  with  members  of  the  minority  race,  it  is  felt  that 
any  discussion  concerning  the  I^IcCall  case  would  not  result  in  an  objective  an- 
alysis of  the  problem  but  would  rather  be  based  upon  the  strong  personal  feeling 
of  the  supporters  of  McCall  in  his  long  reign  as  Sheriff  of  Lake  County.  Believed 
any  discussion  of  the  McCall  case  should  be  avoided  as  it  would  not  lend  itself  to 
an  objective  analysis. 

One  major  case  which  is  receiving  a  great  amount  of  local  and  national  publicity 
is  the  indictment  of  six  Vietnam  Veterans  Against  the  War  members  on  antiriot 
conspiracy  charges.  This  case  involves  the  indictment  by  a  Federal  grand  jury  on 
July  13,  1972  at  Tallahassee,  Florida,  of  Scott  Camil,  John  W.  Kniflfin,  William  J. 
Patterson,  Peter  P.  Mahoney,  Alton  C.  Foss,  and  Donald  P.  Perdue  on  above 
charges  in  connection  with  plans  for  disruption  and  engaging  in  violent  activities 
at  the  Republican  National  Cc^nvention.  The  group  is  now  publiclv  known  as  the 
'•Gainesville  Six."  The  trial  is  set  for  October  10,  1972,  at  Gainesville,  Florida. 
During  the  Federal  grand  jury  session  four  Vietnam  Veterans  Against  the  War 
members  including  Robert  Wayne  Beverly,  Jack  Lee  Jennings,  John  Victor  Cham- 
bers, and  William  Bruce  Horton  were  given  immunity  to  testify  but  refused  to  do 
so  and  as  a  result  were  cited  for  contempt  of  court  and  incarcerated  at  Talla- 
hassee, Florida.  They  are  now  referred  to  as  the  "Tallahassee  Four"  and  were 
recently  released  on  bond  as  a  result  of  a  bail  hearing  ordered  b}'  U.S.  Supreme 
Court  Justice  William  O.  Douglas. 

Believed  since  trial  in  above  matter  is  pending  and  subjects  are  represented  by 
battery  of  "movement"  attorneys,  any  comments  whatsoever  would  be  considered 
prejudicial  and  immediately  capitaUzed  upon  bj'  the  press. 

GEORGI.\    (.VTLANTA) 

Stimulated  by  public  and  press  interest,  in  May,  1972,  Georgia  Governor 
Jimmy  Carter  declared  "war"  on  organized  crime.  A  special  Federal  Grand 
Jury,  as  well  as  a  special  Fulton  County,  Georgia,  Grand  Jurv,  is  presently 
proi)ing  "organized  crime."  Special  intelligence  squads  supplemented  financialh' 
by  LEAA  grants  have  been  formed  to  combat  this  problem. 

Atlanta  has  very  high  homicide  rate  attributable  to  eas}'  availabilitj'  of  guns. 
Black  Vice  Mayor  Jackson,  Atlanta,  has  requested  state  legislation  to  control 
possession  of  firearms. 

Federal  Grand  Jur.y  now  sitting  at  Atlanta  to  hear  testimony  concerning 
alleged  inequities  in  decisions  rendered  by  the  Georgia  Board  of  Pardons  and 
Parole. 

Busing  of  school  children  continues  to  be  of  concern.  Atlanta  city  schools  operate 
under  majority  tfi  minority  plan,  approved  by  U.  S.  District  Court,  which  allows 
children  at  school  in  which  they  are  in  majority  to  transfer  to  school  at  which 
they  are  a  minority.  Neighborhood  schools  appear  to  be  preference  of  most  parents. 

Annual  State  Convention  of  the  Peace  Officers  Association  of  Georgia,  Jeykll 
Island,  Georgia,  September  10-12,  1972.  Association  is  composed  of  all  types  and 
levels  of  peace  officers  in  Georgia.  Raymond  Purvis,  Deputy  Sheriff,  Bibb  County 
(Macon),  is  current  President. 

ILLINOIS    (CHICAGO) 

Organized  crime  particularly  in  Chicago  remains  a  problem  in  spite  of  312 
convictions  of  organized  crime  figures  fiscal  year  1969  through  1971  and  176 
organized  crime  figures  currently  pending  prosecution.  Gangland  slayings  are 
tojjical  in  press  particularly  Southside  Chicago. 

Police  corruption  is  extremely  topical  in  press  regarding  Chicago  Police  Depart- 
ment. FBI  using  Hobbs  Act  has  indicted  17  Chicago  police  officers,  convicted  six 
and  investigation  and  grand  jury  resulted  in  50  additional  police  officers  suspended 
for  use  of  Fifth  Amendment. 


70 

Chicago  Alderman  Fred  Hubbard,  alleged  to  have  embezzled  $100,000  of 
Federal  funded  program  for  better  emplo.yment  opportunities  for  minority 
groups  in  building  trades,  was  recentlj^  arrested  by  FBI,  Los  Angeles,  and  returned 
to  Chicago  to  await  trial. 

Racetrack  scandal  involving  ex- Governor  Otto  Kerner,  presently  on  leave  of 
absence  from  position  U.  S.  Judge,  Appeals  Court,  Seventh  Circuit,  also  allegedly 
involves  additional  prominent  Chicago-area  people.  Scandal  involves  alleged 
preferential  treatment  for  racing  dates  in  return  for  racetrack  stock  at  low  price. 
Internal  Revenue  Service  is  prosecuting  for  Income  Tax  Evasion  and  Hobbs  Act. 

Vicious  and  violent  crime  is  extremelj^  topical  in  Chicago  area  press  at  this  time 
due  to  two  triple  slayings  in  Chicago  suburban  areas  recentlj^  and  one  vicious 
rape  murder  in  downtown  Lake  Front  Park  area. 

Gun  control  is  extremely  topical  in  press  particularly  in  view  of  vicious  crimes 
set  forth  above.  State  of  Illinois  has  individual  firearms  owner  identification 
registration  which  is  extremely  unpopular  in  Southern  Illinois.  Concealed  weapons 
are  illegal  in  Illinois.  Individual  firearms  are  registered  in  Chicago.  Gun  homi- 
cides in  Chicago  by  youth  under  20  are  on  increase,  from  38  in  1965  to  271  in  1970, 
an  increase  of  613  percent.  Of  216  gun  law  convictions.  Cook  Count,y,  Illinois, 
as  of  August,  1972,  onl.y  55  were  given  jail  sentence  and  only  21  of  those  received 
60  days  or  more.  General  opinion  is  that  laws  are  adequate,  but  stricter  enforce- 
ment by  courts  is  essential. 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Massachusetts  Correctional  Institutions 

There  currently  exists  a  controversy  concerning  the  Massachusetts  Correctional 
Institutions  which  hinges  around  the  appointment  of  and  the  alleged  liberal  policies 
of  the  current  Massachusetts  Correctional  Institutions  Commissioner  John  Boone. 
During  past  several  months  there  has  been  considerable  unrest  at  several  of  the 
penal  institutions  within  the  state  including  the  recent  deaths  of  two  prison 
employees,  a  convict  and  his  wife  who  allegedly  brought  the  convict  a  weapon 
and/or  ammunition  when  she  visited  him.  A  suit  has  been  filed  in  state  court  in 
an  attempt  to  remove  Boone  alleging  that  he  does  not  have  the  necessary  qualifica- 
tions required  by  state  law  to  direct  the  s.ystem.  In  addition,  several  top  career 
prison  officials  have  been  removed,  replaced,  or  resigned. 

Boston  Police  Department 

Edmund  L.  INIcNamara,  after  two  five-year  terms  was  not  reappointed  as 
Commissioner  of  Police  by  ]\Iayor  Kevin  White  and  position  is  still  vacant.  A 
recent  state  investigation  allegedly  indicates  numerous  Boston  Police  officers 
including  high  officials,  were  paid  sums  of  money  by  gambling  element.  There 
has  recently  been  a  reassignment  of  key  administrative  personnel  coincidental 
with  the  disclosure  of  the  alleged  "pay  offs."  Mayor  White  publicly  denies  any 
connection  between  above  situations.  This  matter  has  and  continues  to  receive 
publicity  and  speculation  as  Federal  and  state  investigation  continues. 

MICHIGAN 

Substantive  problem  areas  which  might  become  an  issue  in  the  criminal  justice 
field  are:  (1)  cross  district  busing;  (2)  Hud-housing  frauds;  (3)  "stress"  (stop 
robberies  enjoy  safe  streets).  This  is  a  decoy  procedure  used  by  the  Detroit, 
Michigan,  Police  Department  in  ghetto  areas  which  has  resulted  in  the  killing 
of  14  subjects  by  police.  The  majority  of  those  killed  have  been  black  and  there 
have  been  law  suits  filed  against  the  city  in  an  effort  to  force  a  discontinuance  of 
this  program;  city  officials  and  police  have  maintained  this  program  has  caused  a 
significant  decrease  in  crime;  (4)  attacks  on  police,  there  is  a  continued  increase 
in  the  number  of  attacks  on  police,  which  is  a  big  concern  to  city  and  state  law 
enforcement  officials;  (n)  racial  problems  in  police  department,  young  black  police 
officers  in  the  Detroit  Police  Department  have  formed  a  group  called  "Concerned 
Police  Officers  for  Equal  Justice."  There  is  constant  feuding  between  white  and 
black  officers  in  the  Detroit  Police  Department,  which  has  recently  surfaced.  An 
incident  has  occurred  where  black  officers  jumped  white  officers  who  had  a  black 
under  arrest  demanding  their  brother  be  released.  Trial  Board  action  is  now  being 
held  by  Detroit  Police  officials  against  both  black  and  white  officers  because  of 
internal  dissension.  The  black  officers  group  has  made  statement  indicating  they 
would  support  their  own  black  people  against  the  police  department  if  another 
riot  occurs. 


71 

Only  event  of  any  significance  occurring  in  the  immediate  future  in  INIichigan 
is  the  combined  Michigan  Bar  Association  and  Judicial  conference  being  held  in 
Detroit  on  September  22,  1972. 

MISSOURI    (KANSAS    CITY) 

Controversy  has  arisen  over  possible  placement  of  maximum  security  prison  in 
Southeast  Missouri  as  many  authorities  feel  it  should  be  located  near  urban  areas, 
where  the  large  percentage  of  inmates  originate,  so  their  families  may  visit  them 
frequentlj% 

NEW    JERSEY 

The  most  significant  substantive  issue  in  criminal  justice  field  in  New  Jersej^  is 
corruption  among  police  and  civic  officials.  Approximately  1 50  elected  or  appointed 
officials  in  New  Jersey  have  been  charged  with  taking  bribes  or  kickbacks.  Con- 
viction of  Newark  Mayor  Hugh  Addonizio  for  kickback  scheme  with  major  La 
Cosa  Nostra  figure  and  conviction  of  Jersey  City  officials  on  similar  scheme  have 
triggered  allegations  of  score  or  more  similar  cases.  Any  of  these  could  come  to 
fruition  at  any  time  and  produce  major  scandal-type  case. 

Typical  is  recent  indictment  of  former  New  Jersey  Secretary  of  State  Paul  Sher- 
win  for  requiring  political  contribution  kickbacks  from  highway  contractors.  Cur- 
rent New  Jersey  Attorney  Genei-al  George  Kugler  is  imder  fire  for  allegedh'  not 
taking  action  on  learning  of  complaints  against  Sherwin. 

Police  protection  of  gambling  operations  widespread  and  appears  to  exist  in 
most  major  population  areas  of  the  state.  Business  and  political  forces  in  Atlantic 
City  are  lobbjang  for  legalized  casino-type  gambUng  and  rely  heavily  on  argument 
that  illegal  gambling  fosters  police  C(jrruption.  Commissions  probing  New  Jersey 
racial  outbreaks  have  commented  on  "pervasive  feeling  of  corruption"  as  being 
one  of  underlying  causes  of  unrest. 

Court  backlog  is  also  serious  criminal  justice  problem  in  New  Jersey.  Newark 
FBI  has  approximately  eight  hundred  defendants  awaiting  trial  and  substantial 
number  of  convicted  defendants  have  not  been  sentenced  due  to  workload  in  pre- 
sentence reports  by  probation  office. 

One  of  the  more  pressing  problems  in  metro  area  such  as  Newark  is  the  abuse 
of  the  trucking  industry.  Hijacking  runs  rampant  in  these  geographical  locations. 
Although  the  offenders  are  repeaters  in  over  fifty  percent  of  the  hijackings, 
and  the  loads  stolen  amoimt  to  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars,  these  men 
are  released  on  bail  after  each  offense.  They  are  not  pnjinptly  brought  to 
trial  and  are  free  to  hijack  again  and  again,  receiving  minimal  custodj'  sentences 
or  probation. 

NEW  YORK  CITY 

Problem  areas  in  the  criminal  justice  field,  New  York  area,  include  corruption, 
which  has  been  longstanding,  within  the  New  York  City  Police  Department. 
Officers  have  been  arrested,  being  charged  with  [bribery,  narcotics,  etc.,  and  in 
addition,  State  police  and  New  York  City  police  officers  have  been  arrested  by  the 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  in  violation  of  the  gambling  laws  and  other 
offenses,  such  as  bank  robbery.  Newburg,  New  York,  Police  Department  is  sub- 
ject of  corruption. 

A  Commission  known  as  the  Knapp  Commission  conducted  an  extensive  study 
and  held  hearings  which  resulted  in  the  arrest  of  numerous  members  of  the  New- 
York  City  Police  Department.  One  specific  recommendation  of  the  Knapp  Com- 
mission was  the  appointment  of  a  special  district  attorney  to  look  into  and  handle 
corruption,  which  received  the  ajiproval  of  Commissioner  Murphy.  However,  this 
recommendation  has  not  been  entirely  resolved  to  date. 

At  the  i^resent  time  there  are  a  total  of  eight  vacancies  on  the  Federal  Bench 
in  the  eastern  and  southern  districts  of  New  York,  which  without  question  creates 
a  problem  in  the  backlog  of  prosecutive  action. 

OHIO 

The  only  substantive  issue  apparent  in  criminal  justice  field  in  Northern  Ohio 
is  Kent  State  University  incident  which  occurred  May  4,  1970.  Although  the 
Justice  Department  has  decided  to  convene  no  Federal  grand  jury  in  this  matter, 
the  Kent  State  University  affair  is  potentially  a  problem  area  and  administration 
officials  appearing  in  this  area  could  conceivably  be  questioned  concerning  this 
matter. 


72 

The  Ohio  Association  of  Chiefs  of  Police  will  hold  th<'ir  annual  conference 
September  13  through  15,  1972,  at  the  Sheraton-Da.vton  Hotel,  Daj'-ton,  Ohio, 
with  approximatel.7  275  people  estimated  to  attend.  Annual  meeting  includes 
installing  new  president,  review  of  policies,  and  solving  problems.  Person  to  he 
contacted  concerning  participation  is  Chief  Pi-obert  Woods,  Moraine,  Ohio,  Police 
Department,  first  vice  president  to  be  installed  as  president,  telephone  number 
513-29S-7424. 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Pennsylvania  policy  for  releasing  criminals  under  a  "furlough"  plan  has  upset 
certain  courts  and  the  public.  Plan  was  approved  by   Governor  Milton  Shapp. 

Yablonski  murder  trials  of  Albert  Pass  and  William  Prater  to  begin  late  Octo- 
ber, 1972.  Pennsylvania  State  Supreme  Court  hearing  arguments  on  pre-trial 
motions  beginning  September  25,  1972.  Yablonski  murder  and  resulting  investi- 
gation highlighted  corruption  in  United  Mine  Workers. 

FBI  investigating  FHA  and  real  estate  industry  in  Philadelphia.  Several 
persons  have  been  indicted,  including  former  director  of  FHA,  for  false  statements 
and  payoffs. 

Fraud  Against  the  Government  cases  are  under  investigation  in  flood  areas  of 
Wilkes-Barre,  Pennsylvania.  Cases  involve  alleged  false  statement  to  HUD  and 
alleged  payoffs. 

A  special  Grand  Jur^-  is  investigating  alleged  police  corruption  in  Philadelphia 
at  present  time.  Pennsylvania  Crime  Commission  also  having  hearings  re  police 
corruption. 

SOUTH    DAKOTA 

Militant  Indian  groups  on  Pine  P^idge  and  Rosebud  reservations  contend 
favoritisni  shown  the  non-Indian  in  criminal  matters  from  the  standpoint  of 
investigation  and  prosecution.  They  also  contend  pohtics  controls  law  enforce- 
ment within  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  (BIA). 

TENNESSEE 

In  recent  months  there  has  been  unfavorable  publicity  involving  alleged  irregu- 
larities and  misconduct  on  part  of  officers  of  Mem])his  Police  Department.  A 
number  of  different  proposals  have  been  made  as  to  which  branch  of  local  govern- 
ment should  conduct  investigation  of  police  department.  The  latest  development 
is  annoimcement  by  city  council  that  a  broad  council-supervised  investigation 
will  be  conducted  concerning  Memphis  Police  Department.  In  addition,  West 
Tennessee  Chapter  of  American  Civil  Liberties  Union  has  also  announced  it  will 
conduct  its  own  investigation  of  Memphis  Police  Department. 

Of  possible  interest  in  criminal  justice  field  is  current  controversy-  regarding 
vacancy  on  Tennessee  Supreme  Court.  Following  death  on  June  19,  1972,  of  one 
of  State  Supreme  Court  Justices,  Governor  Winfield  Dunn  of  Tennessee  an- 
nounced intention  to  aj^priint  Thomas  F.  Turley,  Jr.,  United  States  Attorney 
for  the  Western  District  of  Tennessee,  to  fill  vacancy  on  State  Supreme  Court. 

Robert  L.  Taylor,  Jr.,  a  ^Memphis  attorney  and  former  Appeals  Court  Judge, 
taking  ])osition  that  Tennessee  constitution  requires  that  this  vacancy  be  filled 
by  voters,  conducted  a  write-in  campaign,  receiving  3,301  votes  to  555  received 
by  Turley,  who  declined  to  sponsor  a  write-in  campaign.  Following  election, 
Taylor  announced  intention  to  take  seat  on  Supreme  Court  and  a  Chancellor 
at  Athens,  Tennessee,  administered  the  oath  of  office  to  him.  Latest  development 
is  deci-^ion  by  State  Supreme  Court  restraining  either  Turley  or  Taylor  from 
filling  this  vacancy  until  matter  settled  by  lower  courts.  Supreme  Court  suggested 
that  Governor  in  meantime  appoint  a  temporary  justice  other  than  Taylor  or 
Turley.  Governor  Dunn  has  indicated  he  will  make  a  temporarv  appointment. 

On  July  22,  1972,  Brushy  Mountain  State  Prison  at  Petros,  "Tennessee,  was 
ordered  closed  by  Governor  Winfield  Dunn  because  of  a  wildcat  strike  by  prison 
guards.  At  the  time,  this  was  Tennessee's  maximum  security  prison.  All  prisoners 
were  bused  to  the  main  prison  at  Nashville  utilizing  highway  patrolmen  as  guards. 

This  action  dealt  a  major  economic  blow  to  the  town  of  Petros,  and  former 
guards  picketed  the  State  Capitol  for  several  days  while  the  matter  received  state- 
wide publicity.  Subsequently,  Governor  Dunn  has  made  statements  that  in  time 
Brushy  Mountain  Prison  ma^-  be  reopened  in  some  capacity. 


73 


TEXAS    (SAN    ANTONIO) 


There  are  no  problems  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  be  brought  to  the  President's 
or  John  Ehrlichman's  attention  in  the  criminal  justice  field.  Of  political  signifi- 
cance, hf)wever,  there  is  some  concern  among  some  persons  in  the  Chicano  com- 
munity whether  or  not  the  La  Raza  Unida  Party  should  be  formed.  One  side 
feels  that  Chicanos  should  work  within  the  present  two-party  system  and  not 
for  a  third  part3\ 

Senator  Hart.  Now,  I  am  told  that  explanation  has  been  made 
that  YOU,  yourself,  were  not  in  Washington  when  this  request  came  in, 
or  was  made  of  the  Bureau? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct.  Senator. 

Senator  Hart.  But  it  Avas  handled  by  an  aide,  Mr.  Kinley? 

\Ir.  Gray.  Yes;  Mr.  Kinley  is  sitting  to  my  left.  All  he  did  was 
route  it  over  to  the  assistant  director  of  the  Crime  Research  Division. 

Senator  Hart.  Who  decided  to  send  the  reciuest  out? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  assistant  director  of  the  Crime  Research  Division 
in  conjunction  with  his  people.  They  told  me,  they  reported  to  me 
later  on,  you  know — when  I  came  back  and  found  out  about  this  and 
things  began  to  get  a  little  hot  arotmd  there  because  of  my  unhappiness 
with  this — that  they  thought  nothing  of  it  at  all. 

It  was  a  request  that  came  from  the  WTiite  House.  It  came  to  the 
Deput}^  Attorney  General,  it  came  to  us,  and  they  handled  it  in  the 
regtilar  manner. 

Senator  Hart.  Until  you  returned  and  expressed  your  disapproval, 
do  I  understand  that  no  questions  were  raised  by  any  of  the  officials 
at  the  FBI  about  the  Bureau  being  involved  in  this  type  of  activity? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct.  Senator. 

Senator,  let  me  make  one  thing  clear,  if  I  may.  I  am  giving  you  an 
explanation  of  how  this  hai^pened  but  I  am  not  ducking  the 
responsibility  for  what  happened.  I  accept  it.  I  am  Acting  Director 
of  the  FBI  and  it  is  my  resjionsibilit}'.  Those  errors  are  chargeable  to 
me  and  I  am  merely  ex])laining  in  response  to  your  cpiestion.  I  am  not 
ducking  the  res])onsibilit3^ 

Senator  Hart.  That  reflects  credit  on  the  Naval  Academy. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  just  think 

Senator  Hart.  A  good  captain's  answer. 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  am  just  thinking  it  reflects  credit  on  America,  sir. 

Senator  Hart.  When  did  you  find  out  about  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  It  was  a  staff  meeting  on  Tuesday,  September  12; 
5  p.m.  on  that  afternoon.  Mr.  Ivinle}'  and  m}^  other  yoimg  staffers 
came  in  and  one  of  the  things  the^^  had  to  brief  me  on  was  this,  and 
I  hit  the  overhead.  That  is  when  it  all  began  to  come  ungiued  there 
as  far  as 

Senator  Hart.  And  at  that  time  no  one  indicated  to  you  that 
there  had  been  questions  raised  initiall}^  as  to  the  propriety? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  not  at  that  time  and  not  in  the  subsequent 
investigation  that  I  instituted,  and  in  the  memorandums  that  were 
submitted  to  me,  and  the  questions  that  I  personalh"  asked. 

Senator  Hart.  All  right.  Now  what,  in  fact,  was  involved  in  the 
corrective  action?  As  I  understand  it,  the  press  did  not  report  that 
incident  for  several  weeks  after  the  correction  had  been  made;  am  I 
correct  on  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  didn't — mj^  recollection  is  that  a  report  did  not 
come  out  about  this  foi  quite  a  few  weeks  thereafter  because,  you 


74 

know,  we  didn't  go  around  publicizing  that  I  was  steaming  around 
there  raising  a  lot  of  cain  and  doing  some  things  to  make  sure  that 
this  kind  of  nonsense  did  not  occur  again. 

Senator  Hart.  Wliat  did  you  do  to  make  sure  that  that  kind  of 
nonsense  did  not  happen? 

ISIr.  Gray.  Well,  one  of  the  things  I  did — as  a  direct  result  of  this, 
and  as  a  part  of  an  overall  management  survey  that  I  am  continually 
conducting,  one  of  the  surveys  I  mentioned  earlier  this  morning  in  my 
testimony — was  that  I  wiped  out  the  Crime  Research  Division,  and 
I  transferred  to  nwself,  to  my  office,  my  immediate  office,  Press 
Relations  and  Congressional  Relations. 

Senator  Hart.  Did  you  discuss  this  incident  at  the  time  you  first 
learned  of  it,  or  subsequently,  with  anyone  at  tlie  White  House? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not. 

Senator  Hart,  But  you  do  feel  that  it  is  not  an  appropriate  FBI 
field  of  activity 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is  improper.  It  should  have  gone  to  the  U.S.  attorney. 
It  had  no  business  being  sent  to  where  it  was  sent:  to  the  LEAA,  or 
Assistant  Attorney  General  in  charge  of  Criminal  Division,  or  to  the 
FBI.  It  is  one  of  those  things  that  happen  when  papers  are  stacked  up 
in  a  basket  and  a  guy  wants  to  route  them  out  in  a  hurry,  and  boom. 
This  one  sat  around  for  7  days,  sat  around  until  almost  the  deadline 
date  for  the  report. 

Senator  Hart.  My  last  topic  bears  on  these  dossiers.  I  believe  that, 
if  not  in  j^our  prepared  testimony,  at  least  in  an  exchange  with  Senator 
Ervin,  much  of  that  ground  has  been  covered.  One  thing,  and  I  think 
I  indicated  this  to  you  when  we  were  listing  them  before  the  hearing 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  I  remember. 

Senator  Hart.  I  would  like  to  know — we  are  in  agreement  that  the 
maintenance  of  files,  such  as  you  discovered  had  been  established  and 
were,  in  fact,  in  the  Bureau  without  your  knowledge  for  some  time — 
that  the  maintenance  of  that  type  of  file  is  wrong? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  but  that  type  of  file  only  consisted  of  that 
summar}^  memorandum,  and  we  are  talking  about  just  one  document — 
that  is  all.  I  just  want  to  make  that  real  clear  because  it  was  only 
one  document  derived  from  public  source  information,  and  from  in- 
formation in  the  FBI  files  at  the  field  division  level  and  at  the  FBI 
headquarters  level,  so  we  are  only  talking  about  one  document — 
just  one  document,  not  a  file.  Every  time  a  Senator  or  Congressman 
writes  to  us  about  something — it  may  be  legislation,  it  may  be  a 
constituent  problem,  or  it  may  be  giving  me  the  devil  for  something — 
that  goes  in  our  files,  you  know,  and  we  are  not  talking  about  that. 
I  am  just  talking  about  the  summary  memorandum  that  derived 
from  public  source  material  and  FBI  files,  Division  files,  and  FBI 
Headquarters  files. 

Senator  Hart.  You  no  longer  maintain  that  file,  that  type  file? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  do  not  develop  any  more  of  them,  but  we  still  have 
those  summary  memorandums. 

Senator  Hart.  That  is  my  question.  What  do  we  do  about  those? 
Mr.  Gray.  We  still  have  the  summary  memorandums,  and  you 
know,  Senator,  my  first  reaction  was  to  burn  ever}^  one  of  them,  and 
then  I  said  to  myself  as  we  argued  this,  nobody  will  believe  that  I 
burned  them,  or  they  ^\ill  all  want  to  stand  there  and  read  each  one 
as  I  burn  them.  Then  I  decided  I  could  not  do  that  anyhow  because 


75 

that  is  contrary  to  the  law.  I  have  got  to  get  permission  from  the 
Archivist  of  the  United  States  to  destroy  files.  You  have  to  go  to  the 
Archives;  and  if  you  have  a  problem  there,  3'ou  have  to  go  to  GSA, 
and  it  would  be  forever  before  I  got  these  summar}-  memorandums 
destroyed.  But  if  there  were  an  eas}"  way  to  destroy'  these  summary' 
memorandums,  I  would  do  it  because  there  is  no  need  for  them. 

Senator  Hart.  The}'  could  be  hurtful  to  a  citizen? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  could  if  they  got  out  in  certain  cases. 

Senator  Hart.  Well,  wouldn't  the  redtape  and  the  difficult}'  be 
warranted  as  a  means  of  insuring  against  that  kind  of  hurt? 

Air.  Gray.  Well,  the  Archi^dst  is  required  to  review  material  to  be 
destroyed,  and  I  do  not  want  people  to  read  some  of  this  rot  that  is 
in  those  files,  that  is  where  the  hurt  comes  in,  and  I  am  not  going  to, 
as  long  as  I  am  the  guardian  of  those  files,  I  am  going  to  break  my 
back  to  protect  those  files  because  it  is  wrong  to  let  some  of  that  stuff 
out.  Somebody  has  got  to  read  them.  And  once  agam,  you  get  the 
question  of  who  is  gomg  to  do  it.  A  lot  of  those 

Senator  Hart.  How  many  such  documents  are  we  talking  about? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  really  know. 

Senator  Hart.  We  would  have  to  know  that  before  we  made  a 
judgment  about  how  difficult  the  destruction  is  going  to  be? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  I  do  not  realh'  know,  but  we  gave  this  a 
lot  of  thought. 

Senator  Hart.  Do  I  assume  it  would  be  too  complicated? 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  we  looked  into  what  we  would  have  to  do  going 
through  the  cham,  the  writing  of  the  letters,  the  justification,  the 
examination  of  the  documents,  j^ou  know.  I  don't  want  anybod}' 
examining  those  documents. 

Senator  Hart.  We  are  all  in  agreement  with  that.  We  are  trj^ing  to 
get  rid  of  them. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  That  is  right.  If  the  United  States 

Senator  Hart.  You  are  the  fellow  who  has  them. 

Mr.  Gray  (contmuing).  If  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  would 
quickly  enact  a  piece  of  legislation  and  sa}'  that  the  Acting  Director 
of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  is  authorized  to  destroy  these 
summary  memorandums,  I  would  do  it,  and  I  will  give  3'ou  my  word 
I  would  do  it. 

Senator  Hart.  Mr.  Chau"man,  do  you  want  to  draft  such  a  bill? 

The  Chairman.  That  is  your  job.  [Laughter.]  You  are  conducting 
the  investigation. 

The  Chair  is  going  to  be  gone  for  about  10  minutes.  Wlien  you 
finish,  Senator  Hart,  we  will  hear  from  Senator  Gurney  and  then 
from  Senator  Kennedy. 

Senator  Hart  (presiding).  I  will  recognize  Senator  Gurney,  but 
before  I  do,  since  Mr.  Kinle}'  is  here,  is  there  an}-  detail  that  you 
would  be  in  position  to  add,  either  with  respect  to  the  complication 
in  destroying  the  files  or  the  decisions  that  were  taken  and  discussions 
that  occurred  in  connection  with  the  request  for  law  and  order  speech 
material? 

Mr.  Gray.  Mr.  Kinley  reminds  me  that  he  has  not  been  sworn, 
Senator. 

Senator  Hart.  I  will  make  a  bargain,  if  he  will  give  us  an  answer 
we  won't  swear  him.  [Laughter.] 


76 

Mr.  Gray.  David  D.  Kinley. 

David  Enley  is  my  executive  assistant.  I  neglected  this  morning 
to  introduce  him. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DAVID  D.  KINLEY,  EXECUTIVE  ASSISTANT  TO  THE 
ACTING  DIEECTOE  OF  THE  FEDEEAL  BUEEAU  OF  INVESTIGATION 

Mr.  Kinley.  I  have  nothing  to  add  to  what  Mr.  Gray  has  stated 
about  the  summary  memorandums.  I  could  only  add  a  few  brief 
details  about  the  episode  surrounding  the  request  for  the  criminal 
justice  information. 

Senator  Hart.  Fine. 

Mr.  Kinley.  The  request,  as  we  have  since  been  able  to  recon- 
struct it,  came  from  the  Wliite  House  and  was  sent  to  the  Office  of 
the  Deputy  Attorney  General,  dated  September  1.  It  had  a  deadhne 
of  September  7  for  return  of  the  information.  As  j-ou  will  see  from  the 
copy  of  the  niemorandum  which  was  made  available  subsequently 
by  Mr.  Ehiiichman,  about  the  end  of  October,  to  the  press,  the 
memorandum  asked  for  criminal  justice,  or  information  on  criminal 
justice  issues  in  about  14  States.  The  memorandum  was  forwarded 
with  a  cover  memorandum  from  the  Office  of  the  Deputy  Attorney 
General,  requesting  that  the  information  be  forwarded  back  to  his 
office  as  soon  as  possible  because  they  were  beyond  the  deadhne. 

That  memorandum  reached  my  office  on  Friday,  September  8, 
late  in  the  afternoon,  and  I  immediatel}'  routed  it  to  the  Office  of  the 
Assistant  Director  in  Charge  of  tlie  then  Crime  Research  Division. 

On  the  afternoon  of  Monday,  September  11,  at  4:55  p.m.,  the 
report  came  back,  which  we  will  also  make  available  to  the  com- 
mittee, of  certain  criminal  justice  issues  in  the  14  States  that  were  of 
interest  to  local  law  enforcement,  and  I  approved  that  report  and 
forwarded  it  immediately  to  the  Office  of  the  Deputy  Attorney 
General. 

The  next  da}^,  or  late  that — I  beheve  it  was  late  the  next  day, 
Tuesdaj^,  the  12th,  another  member  of  the  staff  brought  to  me  a  co]>y 
of  a  teletype  that  had  been  sent  to  21  field  offices  that  quoted  verbatim 
the  request  from  Mr.  Ehrlichman's  office  and,  at  that  point,  Mr.  Gray 
had  returned  to  the  office,  and  that  is  when  we  went  to  the  5  o'clock 
staff  meeting  on  Tuesda}^  the  12th  to  report,  to  brief  him  on  the  entii'e 
episode. 

Senator  Hart.  I  thank  you  for  the  information. 

The  Senator  from  Florida. 

Senator  Gurney.  Thank  3'^ou,  Mr.  Chairman. 

On  that  same  point,  had  the  White  House  inquired  before,  on  pre- 
vious occasions,  for  information  about  what  is  going  on  in  the  field  in 
the  area  of  criminal  activity? 

]\Ir.  Gray.Ycs,  sir;  I  beheve  they  had  because  when  I  got  into  this 
and  began  investigating  it  and  reall}^  literally  cross-examining  some 
of  the  i^eople  involved,  each  of  them  told  me  that  they  saw  nothing 
unusual  with  tliis  request,  and  they  proceeded  in  the  normal  manner, 
and  they  said  to  me  the  only  thing  the}"  would  have  done  differently 
would  have  been  to  rephrase  the  language,  instead  of  setting  out  the 
White  House  memorandum  verbatim  in  the  FBI  telet3^pe. 


77 

Senator  Gurney.  In  other  words,  except  for  the  particiihir  time  of 
year,  political  activity  was  going  on  at  that  time,  this  would  have  been 
a  usual  request  of  the  FBI,  and  they  would  have  answered  in  a  usual 
fashion  as  they  did.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  As  far  as  the  criminal  justice  items  were  concerned  that 
affected  us  in  a  given  area,  it  would  have  been.  The  thing  I  took 
umbrage  at  was  reall}^  the  full  political  context  in  wliich  it  was  placed 
b}^  sending  that  telet3^pe  out  with  the  White  House  memorandum  in 
there  verbatim.  If  we  had  information  in  our  field  divisions  regarding 
criminal  justice  issues,  which  in  fact  we  did,  we  merely  had  to  ask  for 
it,  you  know.  This  is  a  service  that  has  been  provided. 

Senator  Gurney.  Your  anger  was  because  a'ou  did  not  want  any 
reflection  on  the  FBI  for  participation  in  any  political  activity? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Gurney.  A  couple  of  items  on  this  Segretti  exchange  of 
information  you  discussed  with  Senator  Hart.  As  I  understand  it,  you 
asked  i\Ir.  Dean,  after  the  news  articles  appeared,  if  he  had  showed  any 
FBI  memorandums  to  Mr.  Segretti,  and  his  answer  was  "No."  Then 
there  were  other  questions  about  wlw  you  had  not  asked  something 
else. 

My  understanding  of  jour  answer  is  that  you  posed  the  question 
so,  and  the  exchange  between  you  and  Mr.  Dean  was  such,  that  had 
there  been  any  other  facts  and  circumstances  that  Dean  was  aware 
of  regarding  how  the  memorandum  might  have  gotten  into  the  lap  of 
Mr.  Segretti,  if  in  fact  it  had  been  shown  to  him.  Dean  would  have 
disclosed  them.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Gray.  Certainly  the  facts  and  circumstances  were  such,  be- 
cause I  was  plenty  irate  over  that  telephone,  Senator. 

Senator  Gurney.  One  other  question  on  the  Segretti  business, 
with  regard  to  the  investigation  bv  the  FBI  of  any  criminal  activities 
of  Mr.  Segretti,  as  opposed  to  his  political  activities.  It  is  my  under- 
standing that  the  FBI  onl}^  directed  their  investigation  into  any 
possible  criminal  involvement  in  this  Watergate  business.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  wouldn't  it  have  been  highh^  improper  if  the  FBI  had  looked 
into  any  so-called  political  activities?  This  is  not  within  your  orbit. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

We  would  have  been  charged  with  doing  something  that  was 
certainly  not  within  our  jurisdiction  to  do,  and  this  was  one  of  the 
reasons  that  after,  even  after  I  got  the  opinion  from  my  own  legal 
counsel,  I  wanted  to  make  sure  I  had  another  legal  opinion  that  we 
were  right.  I  was  always  carrying  in  the  back  of  ni}"  mind  from  day  1 
that  this  eventually  had  to  become  a  celebrated  case  and  the  credi- 
bility of  the  FBI  as  an  institution  was  at  stake,  and  this  had  to  be  as 
perfect  an  investigation  as  we  could  make  it.  I  did  not  want  it  tripped 
up  on  any  kind  of  technicalities. 

Senator  Gurney.  One  general  question  on  the  Watergate  investi- 
gation as  such:  Could  you  tell  us  how  extensive  it  was,  how  many 
agents  were  involved  in  this  investigation  and  how  long  it  took? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurney.  And,  incidentall}^,  I  presume  that  the  indictments 
of  the  people  who  were  indicted  and  tried  were  the  result  of  evidence 
uncovered  by  the  FBI  investigation.  Is  that  true,  at  least  partially? 


91-331—73^ 


78 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  our  information  that  was  being  used  by 
the  Assistant  U.S.  Attorneys  conducting  the  grand  jury  which  began 
on  the  23d  of  June  1972,  6  days  after  the  offenses,  alleged  offenses  at 
the  time  were  committed,  and  that  was  the  date  of  the  first  witness 
before  the  grand  jury.  But  that  was  only  a  single  witness,  and  then  on 
the  27th  of  June  began  the  parade  of  witnesses  as  they  marched  by 
with  our  evidence. 

As  far  as  the  statistics  are  concerned,  for  the  period  June  17  to 
December  31,  1972,  field  offices  involved  were  56,  the  legal  attaches 
involved  were  four,  the  leads  covered  were  2,670,  the  interviews 
conducted  were  2,321,  the  man-hours  expended  by  agents  were 
21,658,  by  clerical  personnel,  5,263,  and  this  was  performed  by  343 
agents. 

Now  we  had  an  additional  period  of  time  involved  in  assisting  the 
U.S.  attorneys,  the  assistant  U.S.  attorneys  in  trial  preparation. 
This  is  standard  in  our  investigative  work  in  order  to  fill  in  any  holes 
or  to  assist  him  as  he  goes  along  in  his  trial,  in  his  preparation  for 
trial  and  in  the  trial,  and  the  complete  total  as  of  January  31,  1973: 
56  field  offices  were  involved,  four  legal  attaches'  offices  were  involved, 
2,698  leads  were  covered,  2,347  interviews  were  conducted,  22,403 
agent  man-hours  were  expended,  5,492  clerical  hours  expended. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Is  it  fair  to  say  that  this  was  what  would  be 
called  a  massive  investigation?  Would  that  be  a  fair  way  to  put  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  Every  experienced  investigator  in  the  Federal  Bureau 
of  Investigation  has  told  me,  and  I  think  that  each  of  them  would 
testify  under  oath,  that  this  investigation  was  conducted  with  the 
full  court  press,  it  was  a  major  special,  it  was  conducted  in  accordance 
■with  the  standard  operating  procedure  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation,  and  that  the  Acting  Director  put  no  limitations  or 
restrictions  upon  these  agents. 

Senator  Gurney.  I  do  want  to  commend  you  on  your  initial 
opening  statement  as  well  as  your  answers.  I  think  they  have  been 
as  full,  frank  and  candid  as  any  witness  before  this  committee  since 
I  have  been  on  it. 

One  other  thing  is  a  matter  of  local  importance  because  it  involved 
severe  criticism  of  the  FBI  at  the  time.  You  may  recall  the  incident 
of  the  Southern  Airways  airplane  that  cavorted  around  the  United 
States  and  Cuba,  and  even  Canada,  before  its  final  stop  landed  in 
Orlando,  Fla.,  my  hometown.  There  some  of  the  plane's  tires  were 
either  shot  or  attempted  to  be  shot,  and  it  had  to  come  to  a  belly 
landing  in  Havana  when  it  finally  came  down.  The  FBI  was  criticized 
for  this,  and  I  do  not  really  tliink  the  true  story  has  ever  come  out. 
Would  you  mind  spending  a  few  minutes  describing  that  incident? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator  Gurney,  I  would  be  happy  to. 

I  was  in  Connecticut  at  my  home  Friday  evening  late  when  I 
received  the  first  telephone  call  of  the  hijacking  from  my  command 
center  headquarters  in  Washington.  I  received  several  more  telephone 
calls  throughout  that  evening.  Those  were  all  informative  calls  in 
nature,  requiring  no  decision  on  my  part  at  that  time. 

Then,  in  the  early  morning  hours,  telephone  calls  picked  up  again 
and  through  the  day  I  stayed  in  contact  going  right  on  down  into  the 
evening.  In  the  evening  the  reports  began  to  come  in  to  the  effect 
that  our  personnel  were  in  touch,  as  we  are  on  this  circuit,  with  the 
airways  ofl&cials.  Southern  Airways  officials.  We  always  are  in  touch 


79 

with  the  airline  company,  with  the  Federal  Aviation  Administration, 
with  our  own  command  post,  we  are  all  linked  there  together  and 
also  with  the  White  House  Situation  Room. 

But  the  information  began  to  come  in  toward  the  end  of  the  after- 
noon that  this  thing  was  reaching  a  very  severe  stress  situation,  not 
only  from  the  standpoint  of  equipment,  but  from  personnel  fatigue, 
and  further  that  the  oil  condition  in  the  engines  was  becoming  rather 
severe,  and,  in  fact,  the  pilot  himself,  in  landing  at  Key  West,  stated 
over  the  circuit  that  he  would  have  to  have  oil  or  the  engines  could 
not  continue  to  function. 

Just  shorth^  before  S  p.m.,  Southern  Airways,  with  whom  we  were  in 
constant  contact,  stated  that  it  was  their  recommendation  that  that 
flight  not  be  permitted  to  leave  Orlando,  that  it  would  seriously 
jeopardize  the  lives  of  all  on  board  because  of  the  conditions  I  have 
previously  enumerated. 

I  can  recall  after  getting  that  call  having  about  20  minutes.  I  sat 
down  and  wTote  out  the  pros  and  cons.  I  knew  what  the  risks  were.  I 
knew  that  our  people  had  earlier  in  the  day  at  Knoxville  practiced  an 
assault  on  a  similar  type  aircraft  on  the  ground  because  I  knew  that  if 
we  disabled  that  aircraft  we  had  to  be  prepared  immediately  to  go  in 
and  get  the  people. 

We  also  knew,  another  factor,  that  these  men  who  had  hijacked  the 
aircraft  wanted  to  go  either  to  Africa  or  to  Switzerland  and  were  asking 
for  charts,  and  we  knew  that  the  aircraft  could  not  go  there. 

So  I  made  the  decision  at  8  o'clock,  and  I  called  my  command 
center  and  I  told  them  to  mark  the  time,  it  was  8  o'clock,  "I  am  order- 
ing that  the  tires  be  shot  out  of  this  aircraft."  This  was  the  recom- 
mended— a  recommended — procedure,  one  that  had  been  checked  into 
with  the  FAA,  checked  with  airlines,  and  all  said,  "'Shoot  the  tires 
out,  and  you  disable  the  aircraft."  There  are  other  ways,  we  could  have 
sprayed  CO2  into  the  engines,  but  these  particular  hijackers  were 
awfully  jumpy  and  would  make  that  pilot  take  off  even  if  the\^  saw 
people  out  on  the  ends  of  the  runways  there,  anywhere  near  it;  they 
were  very  jumpy  and  would  let  no  one  approach  that  plane. 

The  pilot  was  not  a  free  agent.  There  was  no  way  in  the  world  of 
getting  to  him.  Wlien  my  special  agent  in  charge,  leading  the  special 
agents,  got  under  the  aircraft  while  it  was  immobile  and  stationary  at 
Orlando,  went  to  the  fuel  truck  that  was  over  there,  parked  some  50 
feet  away  from  the  aircraft,  in  fact,  aft  of  the  starboard  beam  of  the 
aircraft,  to  see  if  there  were  any  headphones  he  could  plug  in  to  tell  the 
pilot,  there  were  no  headphones,  and  he  came  back  and  began  to  shoot 
out  the  tires.  They  did  shoot  them  out. 

The  aircraft,  as  they  were  startmg  to  put  their  fingers  on  the  button 
to  open  the  doors  to  assault  the  aircraft,  that  plane  took  off  at  full 
throttle  and  went  down  the  runway.  Now  no  one  thought  that  plane 
would  ever  get  off  the  ground.  Apparently,  in  hindsight,  it  was  loaded 
lightly  enough  so  that  it  generated  its  own  air  cushion  and  was  able 
to  get  off  the  ground. 

Smce  then — well,  durmg  the  immediate  period  followmg  that, 
when  I  took  the  full  responsibility  which,  of  course,  is  mine — I  had 
a  call  from  a  United  Airlmes  pilot  who  said  to  me,  ''You  are  taking  a 
lot  of  heat,  but  if  I  am  ever  in  the  same  situation,  come  and  get 
me." 


80 

I  got  a  letter  from  a  passenger  on  the  plane  Avho  related  that, 
prior  to  the  shooting  out  of  the  tires,  the  attitude  of  the  hijackers 
had  been  dictatorial,  domineering,  arrogant.  After  the  shooting  out 
of  the  tires,  all  they  wanted  to  do  was  land  the  airplane  and  get  back 
to  Cuba  where  they  previously  had  been  and  had  decided  Cuba 
was  not  for  them,  and  3^et  they  knew  they  had  to  get  on  the  ground 
and  their  attitude  changed  completely,  this  passenger  said. 

I  just  rode  up  yesterday — on  Monda}^ — came  back  from  Florida 
with  a  National  Airlines  captain  Avho,  when  we  ended  the  flight, 
came  back  to  talk  to  me,  to  sa}^,  "I  know  you  have  gotten  a  lot  of 
heat  on  the  Southern  Airways  situation  but  if  I  am  in  that  situation, 
come  and  get  me.  You  have  my  confidence." 

This  is  a  rough  sequence  of  the  events.  Senator  Gurney.  These 
were  the  reasons  wh}'  we  did  what  we  did.  We  were  trained  to  do  it. 
We  had  taken  every  possible  step  to  ready  ourselves  to  do  this. 
In  fact,  our  training  program  with  the  airlines  companies  has  been 
extensive.  We  have  ^^•orked  ver}^,  very  closely  with  aircraft  crews 
and  we  have  helped  to  train  them  as  to  how  to  react  to  this  type  of 
situation. 

Senator  Gurxey.  I  appreciate  that.  I  asked  the  cpiestion  because 
I  think  a  lot  of  people  got  the  idea  the  tires  were  shot  out  after  the 
plane  was  in  the  air  and  airborne. 

Mt.  Gray.  No,  sir,  it  was  stationary — not  mobile  at  all. 

Senator  Gurney.  I  do  not  have  any  other  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Hart.  Senator  Kennedy. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Mr.  Gray,  I  apologize  for  not  being  here  earlier 
this  morning.  I  was  necessarily  absent.  I  missed  your  opening  state- 
ment and  some  of  the  questions. 

Of  the  questions  I  have,  some  have  been  covered.  I  would  like 
to  yield,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  reserve  my  right  to  come  back  either 
this  afternoon,  or  the  first  thing  in  the  morning. 

I  want  to  welcome  you  here  and  congratulate  3'ou. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you,  Senator. 

Senator  Hart.  Senator  Thurmond. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Thank  3^ou  very  much. 

Mr.  Gray,  I  wish  to  congratulate  you  upon  having  been  nominated' 
as  Director  of  the  FBI.  I  have  been  looking  into  3'our  record  in  the 
various  points  that  have  been  alleged  against  you,  and  it  gives  me- 
pleasure  to  sa}^  I  intend  wholeheartedl}'^  to  support  you.  I  have  been 
impressed  not  onl}^  with  j^our  education,  a  graduate  of  the  U.S. 
Naval  Academy — one  of  the  finest  educational  institutions  in  the 
country — graduate  of  law  with  honors  at  George  Washington  Univer- 
sit}^,  but  I  also  have  been  impressed  with  your  administrative  ex- 
perience. I  believe  3^ou  served  as  military  assistant  to  the  Chairman 
of  Joint  Chiefs  of  Stafl^,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Thurmond.  I  believe  you  served  as  special  assistant  to 
the  Secretar}^  of  Defense? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Senator  Thurmond.  I  believe  after  that  3^ou  practiced  law  for  8 
years  in  Connecticut? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  I  practiced  from  January 

Senator  Thurmond.  And  jou  served  as  executive  assistant  to  the 
Secretary  of  HEW? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 


81 

Senator  Thurmond.  Special  consultant  to  the  President's  Cabinet 
Committee  on  Education? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Thurmond.  And  Assistant  Attorney  General. 

I  have  made  inquiry  about  your  reputation  and  your  record  and 
I  have  received  only  good  reports. 

I  think  throughout  that  })eriod  of  time  if  there  would  have  been 
anything  against  you  it  would  have  come  forward.  You  served  in 
so  many  capacities  here  with  the  Government,  somebod}^  would 
have  come  forward  with  something  against  your  character  or  reputa- 
tion if  you  were  not  above  reproach,  which  I  think,  of  course,  you 
should  be.  Public  office  is  a  public  trust  and  you  have  onl}^  the  people 
to  serve,  that  is  your  duty. 

I  might  say  that  I  was  impressed  with  the  interview  jon  had  in 
Nation's  Business  when  the  Ciuestion  was  asked  what  you  would  do 
if  politicians  reached  for  the  reins  of  power  with  the  FBI.  I  believe 
you  made  this  statement  and  I  want  to  ask  you  if  that  is  correct. 

"I  would  resist  them  ^^'ith  every  bit  of  ability  I  have.  I  may  have 
to  sit  down  face  to  face  for  a  full  discussion  with  any  politicians  who 
may  seek  to  run  the  FBI." 

Did  you  make  that  statement? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did,  sir. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Have  you  stood  by  that  statement? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Do  you  intend  to  stand  b,y  it  in  the  future? 

Mr.  Grey.  I  do.  ' 

Senator  Thurmond.  Have  you  allowed  anv  politics  to  enter  into 
the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Do  you  intend  to  keep  politics  out  of  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do,  ^Senator. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Do  you  intend  to  perform  your  duties  in  a 
nonpartisan  manner  without  regard  to  party  so  far  as  investigative 
powers  of  the  FBI  go  and  the  other  performance  of  your  duties  while 
Director? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  As  I  said  this  morning  in  my  opening  statement, 
if  I  find  I  cannot  do  that  I  will  resign  and  go  back  to  my  beloved  law 
firm  in  southeastern  Connecticut. 

Senator  Thurmond.  I  was  impressed  with  another  statement  that 
you  made,  and  I  want  to  ask  a^ou  if  you  made  this  statement  in  the 
words  that  I  have  it  quoted  here: 

"The  liberties  the  founders  of  this  countrj^  fought  so  hard  to  attain 
are  too  precious  to  alloAv  them  to  be  lost  in  this  time  of  turmoil.  The 
challenge  will  be  met.  I  know  that  the  people  of  our  Nation  have  the 
courage  and  dedication  to  face  this  challenge  and  resolve  to  continue 
to  develop  and  enhance  the  greatest  form  of  government  ever  devised 
by  the  mind  of  men." 

Are  those  your  words? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  sound  like  mme  from  one  of  my  speeches.  I  can't 
really  remember  it,  Senator,  but  they  sound  like  my  words. 

Senator  Thurmond.  I  believe  the}'  appeared  in  the  Congressional 
Record. 

Mr.  Gray.  From  my  speech? 


82 

Senator  Thurmond.  A  staff  member  excerpted  it  from  the  Con- 
gressional Kecord. 

Mr.  Gray.  It  sounds  like 

Senator  Thurmond.  Do  3^ou  approve  of  those  words? 

Mr.  Gray.  Oh,  I  do  indeed.  [Laughter. 1 

Senator  Thurmond.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  about  this:  I  don't 
know  what  will  be  attempted  to  be  brought  out  about  you  but  unless 
something  comes  out  that  I  can't  foresee  I  intend  to  give  you  my  full 
support  because  I  think  3'ou  are  an  honest  man,  I  think  j^ou  are  a  man 
of  character,  a  man  of  integrity,  you  are  a  man  of  ability  and  dedica- 
tion and  I  think  you  are  the  type  of  man  we  need  in  government. 

I  would  like  to  ask  you  if  3'ou  have  done  anything  in  connection  with 
the  Watergate  affair  to  hamper  the  investigation,  to  try  to  obscure  any 
facts  and  information  from  coming  to  light,  or  have  you  done  every- 
thing 3^ou  could  to  disclose  the  facts  as  thev  have  come  to  the  attention 
of  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  say.  Senator  Thurmond,  we  have  done  every- 
thing that  we  could  possibly  do,  and  we  have  given  it  the,  as  I  have 
said  time  and  again,  the  full  court  investigation  of  the  FBI,  conducted 
it  in  the  standard  manner  of  FBI  investigations,  treated  it  as  a  major 
special,  and  I  think  my  senior  investigators,  if  called  here  to  testify, 
would  state  that  the  Acting  Director  put  no  restrictions  or  limitations 
upon  this  investigation. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Are  you  willing  to  make  your  records  available 
to  the  chairman  of  this  committee  for  his  perusal  and  inspection  in 
connection  with  the  Watergate  investigation  or  any  other  matter 
with  which  you  have  dealt  since  you  have  been  Acting  Director  of  the 
FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  I  am,  and,  if  I  ma^^,  Senator  Thurmond,  I 
would  just  like  to  say  a  few  more  words  on  just  this  point  that  you  are 
raising. 

We,  of  course,  are  a  part  of  the  Department  of  Justice.  This  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judiciary  is  the  committee  that  has  cognizance  of  the 
Department  of  Justice,  and  if  we  in  the  FBI  have  any  committee  of 
Congress 

Senator  Thurmond.  Speak  a  little  bit  louder. 

Mr.  Gray.  If  we  in  the  FBI  have  any  committee  of  Congress  to 
which  we  should  report,  it  is  this  committee.  I  would  be  very  happy 
to  work  with  this  committee.  I  do  not  have  any  hangups  about  giving 
information  to  U.S.  Senators.  I  believe  that  they  are  fairminded 
men,  that  they  are  decent  men,  that  they  are  honorable  men,  they 
have  the  country's  best  interests  at  heart.  For  too  long  has  the  FBI 
been  criticized  for  not  having  an  oversight  committee,  yet,  Mr. 
Hoover  made  every  effort  to  inform  the  Congress,  and  I  will  make  ad- 
ditional efforts,  and  I  look  to  this  committee  as  the  committee  that 
should  look  at  the  FBI.  I  would  intend  to  work  with  this  committee, 
as  I  have  alread}'  done,  and  ^^dth  the  House  Judiciary  Committee, 
and  in  working  particularly  ^^^th  Congressman  Edwards'  Subcom- 
mittee No.  4,  I  think  it  is,  with  regard  to  identification  problems, 
national  crime  information  center  problems,  computerized  criminal 
history  problems,  we  have  met  with  them,  we  have  brought  them  to 
the  identification  division,  and  we  are  opening  for  their  information, 
judgment,  and  decision  the  information  that   they  feel    they  need. 


83 

We  don't  realh^ — we  feel  perhaps  we  have  a  committee  here  in  the 
Senate  Appropriations  Committee  but  that  affects  only  dollars.  They 
get  into  a  lot  of  other  things,  too,  but  we  have  to  have  some  com- 
mitte  here  in  the  IJ.S.  Senate  that  we  can  look  to  as  being  our  com- 
mittee, and  as  we  have  thought  about  this  what  committee  is  more 
natural  than  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 

Some  people  have  said  to  me,  "Why  don't  you  go  up  to  the  Senate 
and  ask  for  a  joint  House-Senate  committee,  an  oversight  committee 
of  the  type  that  you  have  for  the  CIA,"  and  I  have  said,  "I  think 
that  our  committee  is  Judiciary  but  that  is  not  a  decision  for  me  to 
make.  That  is  a  decision  for  the  U.S.  Senate  to  make." 

I  wanted  to  give  you  my  personal  views,  Senator  Thurmond,  on  the 
cpiestion  that  you  raised. 

Senator  Thurmond.  You  stated  you  are  willhig  to  turn  over  any 
records  in  connection  with  the  W^atergate  investigation. 

Are  you  also  willing  to  make  available  to  this  committee  any  of  the 
FBI  agents  who  worked  upon  this  investigation  if  the  committee  so 
desires  to  call  them  as  a  witness  or  to  receive  any  information  from 
them? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Have  you  by  deed  or  act  done  anything  to  in 
any  way  stifle  or  discourage  the  Watergate  investigation? 

Mr.  Gray.  ]\'o,  sir;  quite  to  the  contrary.  Even  in  the  first  week,  on 
Saturday  morning,  June  24,  I  called  in  all  of  those  agents  from  tlie 
Washington  fiekl  office,  including  the  assistant  special  agent  in 
charge  and  the  special  agent  in  charge,  and  lectured  them  rather 
severely  about  the  leaks  and  then  once  again  exhorted  them  to  give 
this  the  full  measure  of  their  investigative  ability,  go  at  it  with  no 
holds  barred  and  investigate  to  the  hilt. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Would  you,  as  Director  of  the  FBI,  feel  that 
it  is  your  duty  to  get  at  the  truth  in  any  investigation,  not  just  the 
Watergate  but  an}^  investigation,  that  comes  before  the  FBI  regardless 
of  who  it  helps  or  who  it  hurts? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  That  is  my  duty. 

Senator  Thurmond.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman.  Thank  you. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Gray. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you,  Senator  Thurmond. 

Senator  Hart.  Senator  Bayh. 

Senator  Bayh.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Gray. 

Mr.  Gray.   Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  appreciate  this  chance  to  visit  with  3^ou  formally, 
although  frankly  not  as  much  as  I  did  in  visiting  with  you  informally 
the  other  day. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you,  Senator  Bayh. 

Senator  Bayh.  Having  the  duty  to  sit  in  one  of  the  seats  with  my 
colleagues  and  explore  with  some  great  degree  of  particularity  the 
cjualifications  of  those  who  come  before  us,  there  have  been  some 
things  in  the  past  which  frankly  I  did  not  relish  and  I  have  to  say 
there  are  a  lot  of  things  I  would  rather  be  doing  than  sitting  here  and 
interrogating  you,  sir.  I  have  been  impressed  every  time  I  have  had 
a  chance  to  meet  you;  first,  in  your  post  down  at  Justice. 


84 

111  the  visit  we  had  the  other  day  in  my  office,  I  was  impressed  with 
your  openness  and  with  your  frankness  and  your  honesty.  In  our 
personal  conversation  the  other  day,  I  expressed,  and  I  will  express 
it  here,  the  concern  I  have  for  the  FBI.  It  is  important  in  our 
system  of  jurisprudence  that  its  impartiality  be  protected  and  main- 
tained, and  its  credibility  and  that  of  its  agents  as  well  as  of  its 
Director  be  as  nearly  as  possible  bej^ond  dispute.  I  expressed  that 
concern  to  you. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Bayh.  And  I  think  you  concurred  in  it. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  I  do. 

Senator  Bayh.  The  questions  that  I  want  to  direct  to  you  will 
be  directed  with  this  in  mind. 

I  think  I  frankly  said  to  you  ^vithout  at  all  intending:  any  personal 
rebuke  or  admonishment  tliat  I  would  have  much  preferred  to  have 
had  someone  come  before  us  who  was  a  professional  law-enforcement 
officer,  one  who  did  not  have  your  political  background. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  agreed  with  you  in  your  ha\dng  to  ask  those  tough 
questions. 

Senator  Bayh.  The  appearance  of  impartiality  and  propriety  is 
oftentimes  almost  as  important  as  impartiality  and  projiriety  them- 
selves in  establishing  and  maintaining  public  confidence.  That  is  wlw  I 
think  some  of  these  questions  need  to  be  asked.  They  have  been  asked 
b}'  others,  they  have  been  raised  elsewhere. 

I  ask  these  questions  for  two  reasons:  One,  to  get  the  facts  on  the 
record,  if  thej^^  have  not  alread}"  been  given,  and  second,  and  perhaps 
even  more  important,  to  lay  to  rest  some  of  the  concern  which  has 
been  raised  by  these  questions  and  perhaps  thus  to  enhance  your 
credibility  and  your  capability  to  serve  if  you  are  given  confirmation 
by  the  Senate. 

In  this  context  I  would  like  to  direct  your  attention  to  some  aspects 
of  your  political  background. 

t  believe  that  a  political  background  is  admirable,  I  have  been 
involved  in  one  for  18  years,  but  perhaps  not  for  the  FBI.  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  some  of  the  things  that  you  have  done,  advertently  or 
inadvertently,  while  you  have  been  the  Acting  Director,  might  have 
political  consequences  which  would  raise  doubts  about  your  assess- 
ment of  how  you  make  the  judgment,  that  you  and  I  agree  needs  to 
be  made,  to  keep  the  FBI  out  of  the  political  cauldron? 

The  speeches  that  have  been  discussed  here  a  bit  are  a  matter  of 
some  particular  concern.  Let  me  just  throw  at  you  some  of  these 
quotes  directly  from  3'our  speeches  and  give  you  a  chance  to  comment 
on  them,  give  your  thoughts  further  or  say  you  don't  think  it  is 
appropriate  or  whatever  you  like. 

In  Spokane 

Mr.  Gray.  Spokane,  Wash.? 

Senator  Bayh.  On  August  7.  You  came  out  strongly  advocating 
the  elimination  of  the  exclusionary  rule  as  to  legally  seized  evidence 
at  a  time  when  this  case  involving  this  particular  question  was  before 
the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  California  v.  Crivda.  Now.  is  that 
kind  of  a  position,  the  Dhector  being  an  advocate  in  a  sensitive  area 
in  the  judiciary  process,  is  that  a  wise  procedure,  do  you  feel? 

Mr.  Gray.  1  feel  in  that  particular  case,  and  not  knowing  that  the 
California  decision  was  pending,  that  this  ^^•as  not  a  wise  thing  for 


85 

me  to  say  and  it  was  certainly  something  that  I  would  not  have  done 
had  I  known  that  that  decision  was  pending.  Indeed,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  even  as  Assistant  Attorney  General  in  the  Civil  Division,  the 
young  lawyers  down  there  will  tell  you,  I  felt  that  the  abolition  of  the 
exclusionary  rule  was  really  not  a  thing  to  be  done,  and  I  worked  at 
it  very  hard  with  the  task  force  and  was  gradually  convinced  that 
it  had  merit.  But  my  initial  opposition  to  it  was  very  strong  and  I 
set  up  a  task  force  of  young  lawyers  down  there  in  the  Civil  Division 
to  really  go  into  that  exclusionary  rule. 

Senator  Bayh.  As  the  Assistant  Attornej^  General,  ^^-ouldn't  you 
have  had  the  oj^portunity  to  know  about  the  progress  of  this  par- 
ticular issue  through  the  courts?  Unless  you  had  been  fairly  well 
advised  that 

Mr.  Gray.  Let  me  say  to  you,  Senator  Baj-^h,  I  didn't — it  is  my 
fault. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  am  not  arguing  the  merits  of  the  rule,  you 
understand. 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  it  is  my  fault  for  not  knowing  that  that  case  was 
pending.  I  was  open  to  be  shot  at,  and  I  have  been  shot  at. 

Senator  Bayh.  Is  it  fair  to  suggest — we  can't  do  anything  about 
what  happened  yesterday  and,  as  I  told  you,  and  as  I  still  feel,  I  have 
not  made  up  my  mind,  I  think  you  are  a  right  guy  and  I  am  trj'ing 
to  determine  what  weight  to  give  these  aspects  that  I  direct  your 
attention  to,  but  if  you  are  confirmed,  I  hope  we  can  put  a  record 
together  that  might  avoid  some  of  the  pitfalls  that  some  of  us  are 
concerned  about. 

Is  it  fair  to  say  that  in  the  future  you  would  take  greater  care  in 
avoiding  this  kind  of  statement  whicli  might  be  interpreted  by  some 
as  affecting  the  outcome  of  a  High  Court  case? 

Mr.  Gray.  Certainly,  I  am  going  to  do  that,  and  certainly  I  am 
not  going  to  be  speaking  as  much  as  I  have  been  speaking  in  the 
months  that  have  passed.  But,  as  I  stated  in  my  opening  statement 
this  morning,  there  was  a  very  good  reason  for  that,  because  I  felt 
that  the  windows  and  the  doors  had  to  be  opened  and  w'e  had  to  begin 
talking  more  w'ith  people;  but  I  don't  anticipate  it  is  going  to  be 
necessary  for  me  to  make  as  man}^  speeches  as  I  made.  There  are 
some  41  of  them,  I  guess,  between  May  and  the  time,  November  19, 
when  I  was  hospitalized.  I  made  those  for  a  very  good  reason,  to  try 
to  bring  to  the  people  the  FBI  as  it  really  was,  and,  quite  frankly,  I 
felt  the  dedicated  men  and  women  of  the  FBI  had  been  maligned  too 
long,  and  a  part  of  it  was  due  to  us,  as  I  said  in  my  opening  statement 
this  morning. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  thought  your  opening  statement  was  a  very  force- 
ful statement,  and  indeed  let  me  say,  frankly,  if  your  speeches  in  the 
field  had  been  confined  to  the  duties  of  the  FBI  and  the  importance 
of  fighting  crime,  the  tools  you  might  need  to  do  so,  I  would  not  be 
concerned.  But  wdien  I  read,  from  a  Butte,  ^lont.,  speech,  on  Sep- 
tember 7,  the  following  quotation:  "There  are  those  who  claim  that 
national  priorities  are  distorted  away  from  the  individual,"  and  then 
you  go  on  to  say  that,  "There  have  been  annual  increases  in  Feder^al 
outlays  for  supporting,  developing  human  resources.  In  the  current 
fiscal  year,  45  percent  of  the  Federal  budget  is  for  human  resources 
and  only  32  percent  for  national  defense,  but  calamity  howlers  who 


86 

say  the  little  man  is  forgotten,  do  not  talk  about  it,"  that  really  does 
not  sound  like  a  law  enforcement  speech.  That  sounds  like  the  Direc- 
tor of  the  Ofhce  of  Management  and  Budget  preparing  a  press  release 
for  the  President. 

]\Ir.  Gray.  No,  I  would  have  to  respectfully  disagree  with  the  dis- 
tinguished Senator  from  Indiana.  Because  that  might  be  tied  in  again 
with  my  very  strong  belief  in  our  country'-.  I  have  felt  very  keenly 
that  too  long  have  scorn  and  ashes  been  heaped  on  the  head  of  America, 
and  for  once  I  had  a  forum,  if  somebody  would  listen,  forme  at  least  to 
talk  for  America,  and  the  thrust  of  these  speeches,  Senator  Bayh,  is 
for  America.  I  think  you  have  got  to  read  these  in  the  full  context, 
not  just  pick  out  facts  that  I  am  using  to  demonstrate  that  America 
has  not  slid  so  far  downhill. 

As  I  said  this  morning,  I  believe  in  this  great  and  good  land  of  ours 
and  the  good  peoi)le  \\"ho  have  made  it  the  land  that  it  is.  So  it  really 
isn't  fair,  I  submit  to  you,  Senator  Baj^i,  to  pick  these  quotations  out 
because  my  intent  ^^■as  to  portray  America,  not  to  carry  the  country 
for  Richard  Nixon.  I  have  got  to  persuade  people  to  believe  that. 
That  is  my  task,  and  if  I  fail,  the  Senate  will  not  advise  and  consent ; 
it  is  that  simple. 

Senator  Bayh.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a  political  speech  that  was  not 
pro- American? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  can  turn  that  question  around,  and  we  are  plotting 
to  get  on  that  line.  I  told  you  I  was  not  making  political  speeches, 
and  I  mean  it. 

Senator  Bayh.  These  speeches  were  not  just  made  at  an  American 
Legion  hall  or  a  high  school  graduation  or  a  bar  association  meeting. 
They  were  made  in  close  proximit}'  to  a  national  election  in  which 
one  of  the  ke}'  issues  involved  was  priorities,  whether  we  are  spending 
too  much  money  on  defense  and  not  enough  money  on  domestic  prob- 
lems. Now,  A'ou  were  avrare  that  this  was  one  of  the  kc}'  issues  joined 
in  this  election? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  no  question  about  it. 

Senator  Bayh.  And  here  your  statement  was  right  on  target. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  was  one  of  the  statements  in  that  speech  that  was 
right  on  that  target.  I  will  say  that  you  can  draw  that  conclusion,  as 
I  said  this  morning,  but  I  also  said  this  morning,  Senator  Bayh,  that 
there  was  no  intent  to  make  a  political  speech,  no  intent  to  write  a 
]3olitical  speech,  and  I  don't  think  that  anybody  who  ever  heard  me 
speak  thought  I  was  making  a  i)olitical  speech. 

Senator  Bayh.  Well,  i)erhaps  it  is  possible  that  the  first  part  of  that 
statement  is  accurate,  and  yet  the  latter  part  is  not. 

We  had  a  good  deal  of  discussion  this  morning  about  this  Cleveland 
City  club  speech.  We  have  to  take  into  consideration  not  only  A'our 
whole  speech  but  the  whole  political  campaign  that  was  going  on, 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Bayh.  You  are  aware  that  one  of  the  major  strategies  of 
the  administration  was  to  send  out  high  surrogates  to  carry  the  Presi- 
dent's message? 

«Mr.  Gray.  I  am  aware  of  that,  3'es,  but  I  was  not  a  high  surrogate. 
Nobody  designated  me  one,  and  I  was  not  self-anointed.  Senator 
Bayh,  believe  me. 

wSenator  Bayh.  Well,  I  am  \\illing  to  accept  your  assessment  that 
you  were  not  a  high  surrogate,  but  when  I  read  parts  of  your  Cleveland 


87 

speech — and  I  would  like,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  put  it  all  in  the  record 
so  that  anybody  who  reads  this  will  not  take  it  out  of  context. 

Senator  Hart.  Without  objection. 

(The  address  referred  to  appears  on  page  23.) 

Senator  Bayh.  "In  our  countr}^  todaj*,  there  are  strident  voices 
proclaiming  that  the  same  conditions  exist  in  our  land.  We  are  told 
that  America  is  *sick'  and  that  law  is  used  to  repress  freedom." 

Run  down  the  same  page:  "We  are  on  the  threshold  of  the  greatest 
growth  pattern  in  our  history — growth  in  the  qualit}"  of  life  for  all 
our  citizens — growth  in  our  total  effort  to  eradicate  the  imperfections 
in  human  society." 

Then  it  goes  on:  "more  employment,  more  medicines,  more  tech- 
nology, more  material  accomplishments."  It  is  a  ver}'  strong  assess- 
ment of  our  strength,  and  then  \\hen  I  compare  the  phraseology  there 
with  the  phraseology  of  the  President's  acceptance  speech,  which  I 
would  also  ask  to  be  put  in  the  record,  the  tone  is  almost  identical, 
and  that  is  wh}'  I  question  the  feeling  that  you  had  that  this  was 
purely  patriotism.  Here  the  President  sa^s:  "It  has  become  fashionable 
in  recent  years  to  point  out  what  is  wrong  with  what  is  called  the 
American  system.  The  critics  contend  it  is  so  unfair,  so  corrupt,  so 
unjust  we  should  tear  it  down  and  set  up  something  else  in  its  place.  We 
have  more  freedom,  more  opi)ortunity,  more  prosperity  than  any 
people  in  the  world.  For  the  first  time  in  5  years" — and  there  is  even 
the  reference  to  crime  ^\'hich  you  point  out  in  the  back  part  of  your 
speech  in  Cleveland — "This  is  the  first  time  we  have  only  had  1-per- 
cent increase  in  crime." 

With  3  our  being  there  as  the  head  of  the  FBI,  in  an  election  year, 
reciting  those  statistics,  which  you  thought  were  nonpolitical,  I  think 
probably  to  a  lot  of  your  audience  they  had  a  very  strong  political 
ring. 

Mr.  Gray.  Well 

Senator  Bayh.  Even  if  ^'ou  didn't  intend  for  them  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  Senator,  you  have  jour  belief,  and  1  have  mine. 
I  didn't  have  that  belief,  and  I  still  don't  have  that  belief. 

Senator  Bayh.  Did  you  forward  am-  of  these  speeches  to  the 
White  House,  or  anything  like  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir.  I  wrote  a  lot  of  these  speeches  myself,  and  the 
men  who  do  the  speechwriting  in  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investiga- 
tion— at  least  who  did  it — would  say  that  we  worked  over  everj^  one 
of  them  very,  very  carefulh',  and  usually — in  the  last  analysis — the 
final  draft  was  mme. 

Senator  Bayh.  You  were  concerned  enough,  and  I  salute  3'ou  for 
this.  As  1  recall  this  morning,  you  told  one  of  those  who  preceded  me 
that  you  checked  this  out  and  that  agents  in  the  field,  or  somebody 
who  did  the  checkmg,  came  back  with  a  feeling  this  was  not  a  political 
forum  and  there  would  be  no  political  ramifications  or  something? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  1  have  ahvays  been  concerned— you 
know,  it  has  alwaj^s  been  perfectly  obvious  to  me — that  from  the 
date  the  President  and  I  met  on  Alay  3  at  the  Wliite  House,  I  am 
going  to  get  tagged  with  this.  You  know,  1  have  got  some  smarts — 
maj^be  not  a  lot — but  I  can  read  that  message  very  clear. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  think  you  have  a  lot,  and  I  think  maybe 

Mr.  Gray.  So  1  have  got  to  govern  mvself  accordinglv  if  1  want  to 


88 

continue  to  serve  in  this  position  with  these  dedicated  men  and 
women  and  work  with  the  two  great  pohtical  parties  in  America.  1  am 
not  a  partisan  guy  and  never  have  been.  1  ahnost  became  a  Democrat 
when  I  left  the  Navy  in  1960,  because  my  whole  family  are  Demo- 
crats. I  even  went  to  see  Chester  Bowles  as  to  whether  I  would  serve 
Richard  Nixon  or  John  Kennedy,  so  I  am  not  a  partisan  guy,  and 
this  is  a  part  of  my  credibility,  my  reputation  for  truth. 

Senator  Bayh.  But  you  did  check  out  the  City  Club  to  see  there 
would  be  no  political  ramifications? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  we  did. 

Senator  Bayh.  Who  did  the  checking  for  you,  Mr.  Gray? 

Mr.  Gray.  1  asked  my  Crime  Research  Division  to  look  at  the 
record,  and  1  found  out  that,  in  the  record  since  1968,  that  the  club 
had  been  trymg  to  get  the  Dnector  to  go  there  and  talk,  and  that  the 
recommendation  of  the  staff  of  the  FBI  was  that  it  would  be  a  good 
forum  for  us  to  carry  the  FBI  message. 

Senator  Bayh.  In  making  your  deter)nination  of  the  political  im- 
pact or  lack  of  political  impact  that  3"ou  would  have  in  this  forum, 
were  you  advised  by  those  who  had  checked  it  out,  and  thus  did  you 
have  the  information  that  the  Democratic  presidential  candidate^ 
Senator  McGovern,  also  appeared  in  that  forum? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  did  not  have  that  information.  I  was  not  concerned 
about  it. 

Senator  Bayh.  Were  you  apprised  that  Sargent  Shriver  M'as  to  fol- 
low you  the  week  following  in  that  same  forum? 

Mr,  Gray.  You  see  I  didn't  look  at  it,  Senator  Bayh. 

Senator  Bayh.  You  see  that  is  what  concerns  me.  You  have  two 
gu3's  on  the  other  side  and  you  have  Pat  Gray  giving  a  good  old- 
fashioned  American  anticrime  speech  and  arriving  in  a  White  House 
jet  and  you  may  have  been  just  as  innocent  as  the  driven  snow,  and 
I  am  willing  to  take  you  at  face  value,  but  that  certainly  would  give 
the  impression  to  the  peojile  at  the  Cit\'  Club  3'ou  were  carrying  a  mes- 
sage from  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  don't  think  so.  Senator  Bayh.  I  put  in  the  record 
this  morning  a  memorandum  that  was  written  by  the  Crime  Research 
Division  people  regarding  this  because  I  wanted  to  know.  I  wanted 
to  know — I  was  not  tr^dng  to  carr}'  the  i)olitical  cudgels  for  anj^one — 
and  I  said  this  morning  when  I  came  into  this  position,  I  viewed  it  as  a 
return  to  the  service  of  my  country,  and  I  still  do  and  I  always  will  so 
long  as  I  am  privileged  to  serve  in  this  position. 

The  Chairman  (presiding).  We  will  recess  now;  there  is  a  rollcall 
vote. 

About  how  much  longer  do  a^ou  have? 

Senator  Bayh.  About  10  or  15  minutes. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  come  back. 

(Short  recess.) 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Senator  Bayh.  Mr.  Graj?-,  let  me  ask  one  last  question  about  the 
speeches  in  relation  to  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Bayh.  You  ])oiiit  out  that  the  FBI  Director  had  been  in- 
vited since  1968,  which  would  assume  that  if  the  invitation  was 
turned  down  a  month  or  two  before  the  election  it  probably  w^ould  have 
been  forthcoming  for  1972. 


89 

Now  in  looking  to  the  future,  is  it  fair  to  suggest  that  a  reasonable 
man,  who  happens  to  be  the  FBI  Director,  given  the  intensit}-  of  the 
campaign,  given  the  fact  that  the  White  House  had  by  specific  request 
asked  for  an  appearance  because  they  thought  it  would  be  pohtically 
valuable,  might  find  that  sufficient  to  warrant  a  future  FBI  Director 
to  conclude  that  maybe  that  is  one  that  he  had  better  pass  up  in  the 
years  ahead? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  what  you  say  is  correct  and  certainly  has  merit, 
but  that  Wliite  House  memo  went  to  20-some-odd  other  people,  and 
I  didn't  attach  an}^  weight  to  that.  I  didn't  go  up  there  because  of  the 
Wliite  House  memo.  I  accepted  the  speech  in  earl}'  June,  and  I  went 
out  there  because  this  was  a  very  prominent  club,  and,  as  I  said  this 
morning,  in  the  memorandums  that  I  am  going  to  insert  in  the  record, 
you  will  find  that  this  says  this  was  a  liberal  group,  and  I  want  to 
talk  to  people. 

I  said  this  morning  in  my  speech  that  I  believe  in  personal  dialog, 
and  I  believe  this  was  a  good  forum  to  take  the  FBI's  message  and 
try  to  talk  about  the  FBI  and  try  to  let  the  people  see  the  Acting 
Director  of  the  FBI. 

But  I  agree  with  you  certainly  that  I  don't  expect  that  I  am  going 
to  be  speaking  anywhere  near  as  much  in  the  future  because  I  have 
opened  a  Avindow,  I  have  carried  the  message  to  the  American  people 
regarding  the  FBI. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  don't  want  to  pursue  this  further,  but  I  would  like 
to  put  in  the  record  a  memorandum  from  ]\Ir.  Patrick  O'Donnell  to 
the  Honorable  Patrick  Gray.  Now,  he  may  have  sent  it  to  25  or  30 
other  people,  but  this  one  is  only  earmarked  to  you,  and  it  makes  a 
rather  strong  pitch  about  the  ])restigious  meeting  place,  and  points 
out  that  both  Secretaries  Hodgson  and  Sliultz  as  well  as  Ambassador 
Bush  have  been  there  and  Jim  Lynn  is  quite  familiar  with  the  club. 
I  just  hope  in  the  future  that  perhaps  when  this  White  House,  which 
is  said  to  be  the  ultimate  in  political  acumen,  assesses  a  speech  to  be  of 
political  value  to  them,  maybe  someone  who  is  not  involved  in  politics, 
the  FBI,  will  take  their  word  for  it  and  sa}^,  "No  thanks,  I  will  do  that 
next  year." 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  sir,  when  I  got  the  memorandum.  Senator  Bayh, 
I  checked — that  is  why  I  got  the  other  memorandum  that  we  are 
going  to  put  in  the  record  from  my  own  Crime  Research  Division — 
just  to  make  certain  I  was  not  getting  m3^self  into  a  situation  where 
I  could  be  really  convicted  of  engaging  in  a  political  act.  I  know  I  am 
being  accused  and  it  is  right  to  accuse  me,  and  I  don't  differ  with  that 
because  you  have  to  bear  this  responsibility  and  I  accept  that.  But  I 
don't  think  in  the  future  you  have  to  be  gravely  concerned, 
because  in  the  future  I  am  not  going  to  make  as  many  speeches. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  am  not  trying  to  convict  anybody,  but  I  feel  that 
under  the  cu'ciimstances  it  was  just  not  a  good  place  to  go.  To  suggest 
that  it  was  a  liberal  forum,  I  supjiose  if  I  were  supporting  the  President 
as  a  conservative,  I  would  be  looking  for  liberal  votes,  so  that  does  not 
make  a  very  good  rebuttal. 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  that  is  true.  I  don't  match  with  you  in  the  political 
area.  I  don't  have  that  much  expertise. 

Senator  Bayh.  We  are  trying  to  be  out  of  a  political  area.  I  just 
want  to  lay  that  out  so  if  the  time  comes  again  to  make  that  decision, 
you  might  say,  "I  remember." 


90 

i\fr.  Gray.  I  get  the  message. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  am  not  suggesting  that  you  take  my  view  as 
being 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  your  point  is  well  taken,  and  I  am  trying  to 
give  you  my  reactions  to  it,  but  your  point  is  well  taken, 

vSenator  Bayh.  I  appreciate  that. 

Let  me  deal  with  one  last  area  here. 

]\rr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  number  of  cpiestions,  but  I  think  because 
the  hour  is  late,  I  would  rather  pass  after  I  get  through  this  one  area. 

The  Chairman.  You  told  me  10  minutes.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  Bayh.  That  is  just  about  what  I  have,  ^Ir.  Chairman, 
10  minutes. 

I  am  concerned,  Mr.  Gray,  about  your  interpretation  of  the  role 
of  the  FBI  Director  as  far  as  to  whom  you  are  ultimately  responsible. 
It  is  sort  of  a  strange  breed  of  cat,  isn't  it,  where  you  are  responsible 
to  the  whole  country,  to  the  Commander-in-Chief,  to  the  Congress, 
to  each  individual  citizen. 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is  a  tough  job. 

Senator  Bayh.  Yes,  it  surely  is. 

You  have  been  described,  accurately,  I  suppose,  and  I  think  it  is  a 
virtue,  as  being  a  strong  team  player,  a  loyal  team  man.  I  have  here  a 
speech  that  you  made  at  HEW  which  really  told  those  assistants 
down  there  the  great  responsibility  they  had  to  be  loyal  to  the  Presi- 
dent. Of  course,  circumstances  have  changed  now.  I  think  being  a 
strong  team  player  is  a  valuable  asset  when  you  are  an  Assistant  to 
the  Secretary  or  when  you  are  an  Assistant  Attorney  General. 

Now,  I  would  like  to  get  your  judgment  as  to  who  you  feel  is  the 
captain  of  the  team  as  far  as  the  Director  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  is  concerned,  to  whom  does  loyalty  flow  from  the  FBI 
Director? 

j\[r.  Gray.  That  is  a  tough  question. 

First,  we  are  a  creature  of  the  Congress,  and  the  Congress  has  seen 
fit  to  place  us  in  the  executive  branch.  The  head  of  the  executive 
branch  is  the  President  of  the  United  States.  We  are  also  the  investi- 
gative arm  of  the  Department  of  Justice.  We  report  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice.  We  are  to  follow  the  mandate,  the  dictates,  and  the 
rules  and  the  regulations  of  the  Department  of  Justice.  Then,  in  the 
last  analysis,  the  individual  has  his  own  conscience,  and,  as  I  said  this 
morning,  if  at  any  time  these  conflict  so  that  I  cannot  pursue  my 
duties  in  an  ethical  manner  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  and 
the  statutes  of  the  United  States  enacted  by  the  Congress,  I  will 
resign  and  go  back  to  my  beloved  law  firm. 

I  "would  iike  to  add  I  am  looking  for  a  cop3^  of  that  speech  I  made 
at  HEW.  I  did  make  it,  but  I  want  to  point  out  the  last  paragraph 
of  that  speech  in  which  I  say,  "We  are  the  servants  of  the  American 
people." 

I  would  like  to  make  special  note  of  that  for  the  record,  that  the 
last  paragraph  tells  there  whom  I  believe  we  are  servmg,  the  last 
paragraph  of  that  speech. 

Senator  Bayh.  Shall  we  put  the  whole  speech  in? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  hke  to  put  in  the  whole  thing. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  was  using  it  as  part  of  the  aspect 


91 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  the  wliole  tiling  is  going  to  come  back,  let's  put 
it  in.  Let  the  whole  thing  hang  out. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Address  by  L.  Patrick  Gray  III,  Executive  Assistant  to  the  Secretary, 
Department  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare,  to  All  Appointees  in 
THE  Department  at  the  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  Level  and  Below, 
July  25,   1969 

I  am  going  to  talk  to  you  a])out  some  lessons  learned  in  the  first  six  months' 
The  approach  will  be  practical,  but  threaded  throughout  will  be  the  lofty  ideal-^ 
and  the  great  concerns  we  have  as  we  join  together  in  HEW  to  serve  the  President? 
the  Secretary  and  the  people  of  our  Nation. 

At  the  risk  of  being  tagged  here  and  now  as  an  over  30,  "turned  off"  reactionary, 
let  me  emphasize  to  you  the  importance  of  the  concept  that  we  are  here  to  serve, 
not  to  be  served — that  we  are  here  to  serve,  not  to  enhance  our  own  perfectly 
normal,  human  selfish  interests.  This  may  be  out  of  tune  with  some  of  the  thinking 
surrounding  us  today. 

Each  of  us  is  possessed  of  our  own  desires,  ambitions  and  goals.  This  is  normal. 
This  is  commendable.  At  the  same  time,  when  we  embark  upon  a  career  in  the 
service  of  our  government,  whether  that  career  is  to  be  short  term  or  long  term, 
we  must  be  quite  willing  to  subjugate  our  own  personal  goals  to  a  deep,  personal 
commitment  to  serve  our  President,  our  Secretary,  and  our  Nation. 

This  commitment  must  be  our  homing  beacon  throughout  our  career  in  the 
service  of  our  government. 

Each  one  of  us  is  here  in  HEW  because  Richard  Nixon  was  elected  to  the  high 
office  of  President  of  the  United  States.  Further  we  are  here  because  Secretary 
Finch  has  seen  fit  to  place  trust  and  confidence  in  us  and  to  approve  our  selection 
to  fill  a  position  in  HEW. 

In  short  we  owe  our  positions  to  the  capability  of  the  President  to  come  ofi 
the  mat,  so  to  speak,  and  drive  through  hard,  vigorous  years  of  campaigning  to 
win  the  nomination  of  the  Republican  Party,  and  then  go  on  to  win  the  Presidency 
of  the  United  States  with  the  valiant  help  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dedicated, 
hardworking  supporters,  campaign  workers,  and  contributors. 

So  also  are  we  here  because  Secretary  Finch  has  seen  fit  to  ask  us  to  serve  with 
him  and  to  help  him  move  this  Department  forward  as  he  and  the  President  seek 
the  solutions  to  the  people  problems  which,  if  not  solved,  might  well  rupture  and 
destroy  the  society  which  the  people  of  our  Nation  have  created. 

Obviously,  we  are  a  chosen  few,  an  elite  group — make  no  mistake  about  it — 
there  are  thousands  of  Repubhcans  who  are  knocking  at  the  door  and  who  would 
be  pleased  to  be  in  our  positions. 

Appreciate  this  hard  fact  of  life.  Appreciate  the  fact  that  every  single  member 
of  the  opposite  poHtical  party  is  working  hard  day  and  night  to  ensure  that  the 
President  of  the  United  States  is  hampered  and  harassed  in  carrying  out  his  pro- 
grams and  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  not  reelected  to  serve  a 
second  term. 

This  is  a  real  hard  political  fact  of  life.  This  is  in  keeping  with  the  nature  of 
our  politicial  system.  Without  such  a  system,  one  party  government  could  pro- 
duce a  totalitarian  state.  We  accept  tliis  fact  of  life;  so  does  the  opposing  part3^ 
Accordingly,  do  not  retch  or  quiver  wlien  we  insist  that  the  preponderant  majority 
of  our  colleagues — political  ai)i:)ointees — be  members  of  our  own  party. 

Again  it  is  plainly  obvious  that  we  must  be  dedicated  and  devoted  to  the  con- 
cept that  our  Republican  President  will  be  a  great  President,  that  his  programs 
will  be  successful,  and  that  he  will  be  reelected  to  a  second  term. 

Above  all  other  qualities  of  character  that  we  hold  near  and  dear,  we  must  have 
deep,  abiding,  sincere  lo3'alty  to  our  President  and  to  our  Secretary. 

Earlier  I  placed  great  emphasis  on  service.  Now  I  want  to  drive  home  hard  the 
emphasis  on  loijaltij.  I  do  not  speak  of  blind,  automatic  loyalty.  I  speak  of  a  sincere, 
an  intelligent,  a  freeh^  made  decision  to  join  President  Nixon  and  Secretary  Finch 
because  we  believe  in  them,  trust  them,  understand  the  goals  and  objectives  they 
hold,  and  desire  to  support  them  with  the  deepest  sense  of  dedication  and  total 
commitment. 

Should  there  be  anyone  of  you  here  present  today  who  cannot  make  this  com- 
mitment, 3'ou  must — in  order  to  maintain  j^our  own  dignity,  self-respect,  and 
integrity — examine  deeply  j-our  own  hearts  and  minds  and  reach  a  decision — to 
serve  or  not  to  serve. 


92 

Do  not  today  understand  me  to  be  saj'ing  that  each  of  you  is  to  consider  your- 
self as  a  fanatic,  blind,  unreasoning,  partisan  Republican  of  the  brand  often  cari- 
catured by  Herb  Block  and  others  who  are  determined  that  an  enlightened,  hu- 
man, understanding  Republican  President  shall  not  succeed. 

No,  I  am  saj-ing  that  you  are  here  because  jow  have  made  a  profound  commit- 
ment to  support  with  total  dedication  the  President  of  the  United  States;  that  you 
have  made  this  commitment  intelligently  because  you  wish  to  join  with  him  in 
bringing  this  country  together  again;  that  j^ou  have  made  this  commitment  in- 
telligently because  you  wish  to  join  with  Secretary  Finch  in  assisting  him  to  per- 
form the  tough  tasks  which  lie  ahead — tasks  which  must  be  performed  well  in 
order  that  the  President  may  accomplish  his  objective. 

Our  Nation  has  elected  a  Republican  President.  We  have  a  Republican  Adminis- 
tration. We  have  Republican  approaches  to  the  problems  of  our  people.  We  have 
the  knowledge  of  the  President's  goals.  We  have  the  common  sense  to  know  the 
desires  and  objectives  of  the  President  and  the  Secretary — we  must  have  the 
loN'altj',  the  courage,  and  the  commitment  to  do  their  will — -not  our  will.  This 
means,  plainly  and  simply,  that  we  get  on  the  track  with  the  President  and  the 
Secretary  and  that  we  stay  there  and  track  with  them. 

You  may  say,  "I  am  not  political" — "I  am  an  Independent" — "I  do  not  care 
what  party  is  involved,  I  vote  for  the  man" — "Politics  is  a  dirty  business,"  and 
so  on.  From  the  vantage  point  of  my  ancient  age,  let  me  assure  you  that  no  Ameri- 
can can  afford  to  ignore  politics,  to  ignore  the  machinery  of  government,  to  adopt 
an  attitude  of  "Let  George  do  it."  This  attitude  is  guaranteed  to  ensure  the  demise 
of  the  two  party  sj'stem — our  form  of  democracy.  No  American  can  afford  to 
avoid  involvement,  particularly  in  today's  world,  when  the  thing  to  do  is  to  be- 
come involved,  to  participate,  to  take  a  position. 
Now  let's  go  on  to  other  lessons  learned: 

LoA-alty  includes  also  a  dedication  to  your  immediate  superior  and  to  those  who 
work  with  you  in  our  cause,  on  our  team. 

Loyalty  includes  an  avoidance  of  criticism  of  our  leaders  and  of  our  colleagues. 
Criticism  which  is  destructive  in  nature  is  cancerous — it  will  destroy  us  and  our 
entire  team.  Snide  remarks  and  facetious  comments  lightly  made  often  come  back 
to  haunt  us.  Too  often  have  I  heard  this  form  of  banter  engaged  in  innocently. 
Too  often  have  I  seen  the  results  published  in  newspapers  or  made  the  subject  of 
remarks  by  the  boob-tube  word  mashers. 

Loj^alty  includes  having  the  common  sense  and  decency  to  deal  with  others  in  a 
manner  calculated  to  bring  credit  to  the  President  and  the  Secretary.  We  are  the 
President's  people — we  are  the  Secretary's  team — and  when  we  speak,  we  speak 
for  the  Secretary  but  w^e  do  not  speak  as  the  Secretary.  We  do  not  wear  the 
Secretary's  mantle.  Therefore,  while  we  speak  from  strength,  we  do  not  speak  with 
arrogance.  Courtesy  is  the  key.  Our  errors  here  become  the  Secretary's  errors  and 
place  him  in  a  very  delicate"  position.  Instead  of  strengthening  him,  we  weaken 
him. 

Loyalty  includes  the  touching  of  all  required  bases  as  we  set  out  on  our  daily 
rounds  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  Secretary.  We  deal  directly  and  candidly. 
We  deal  with  "those  who  ought  to  know  and  who  have  a  responsibility  to  the 
Secretar.y,  too.  In  short,  we  do  not  "end  around." 

I  believe  that  I  may  have  placed  the  concept  of  service  and  loyalty  in  the  proper 
perspective  and  I  want  to  go  now  to  a  few  more  pitfalls  and  prattfalls  that  can 
harm  us,  the  President,  and  the  Secretary. 

Not  one  problem  that  we  handle  in  HEW  is  simple.  This  is  the  lot  of  a  Depart- 
ment responsible  for  the  problems  of  people  at  the  national  level.  Accordingly,  not 
one  task  assigned  to  vou  is  of  a  nature  such  that  you  can  give  it  the  so-called 
"Hght  touch."  You  have  to  shred  the  problem;  look  at  it  from  every  angle;  learn 
to  work  in  depth;  learn  to  dig  hard;  learn  to  turn  in  a  work  product  that  is  as 
thorough,  as  logical,  and  as  clear  as  you  can  make  it.  You  should  be  concerned 
with  the  overview,  the  big  policy,  the  grand  decision.  But  you  also  are  in  a  training 
period,  a  development  period — ^we  all  are.  Do  the  tasks  assigned  well  and  you  will 
find  that  your  personal  job  satisfaction  is  enhanced  and  your  responsibilities  are 
increased.  Above  all  do  not  seek  out  only  the  so-called  "glamour  work";  put  your 
shoulder  to  the  wheel  and  be  eager  to  tackle  the  "nitty  gritty"  chores,  too. 

The  President  and  the  Secretary  appreciate  another  hard  fact  of  Ufe.  Simply 
stated  it  is  that  intelligent  members  of  an  ehte  group — our  team — will  generate  a 
wide  diversity  of  views  and  rather  strong  opinions  regarding  the  highly  charged 
issues  facing  our  Nation  today.  This  is  great  and  we  do  not  want  to  stifle  the  minds 
and  stagnate  the  thought  processes  of  the  members  of  our  team.  At  the  same  time. 


93 

and  although  we  beUeve  in  and  foster  the  thorough  airing  of  our  views  and  opin- 
ions within  our  own  family,  we  must  present  a  united  front  in  support  of  a  decision 
once  made  by  the  President  or  the  Secretary.  Our  support  must  be  total  and  ab- 
solute. 

In  conversations  with  others,  we  do  not  refer  to  RHF  as  "Bob."  He  is  the 
Secretary  to  all  within  the  Department  and  to  outsiders.  Be  extremely  careful  at 
all  times  to  maintain  the  dignity  of  his  office,  but  do  it  with  warmth  and  humility — 
not  with  arrogance.  We  have  enough  problems  in  HEW  now  without  creating 
more  by  being  inept  or  overbearing. 

Even  though  each  of  us  is  close  to  the  Secretary,  resist  at  all  times  the  tempta- 
tion to  enhance  our  own  image  by  "puffing,"  or  by  our  actions  demonstrating 
how  close  we  are  to  the  Secretar3^  We  would  not  be  here  if  we  were  not  close  to  the 
Secretary  and  those  with  whom  we  will  come  in  contact  know  this  political  fact  of 
life.  You  will  demean  yourself  and  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  by  taking  "name 
dropping"  advantage  of  your  position. 

Lobbyists — You  will  come  in  contact  with  them;  they  have  a  legitimate  reason 
for  existing.  Be  a  courteous  listener,  but  a  niost  careful  talker.  Make  no  commit- 
ments whatsoever  in  the  name  of  the  Secretary:  Moreover,  do  not  even  talk  in 
such  a  manner  to  "lead  on"  a  lobbyist — you  trap  yourself  in  a  very  difficult 
situation  and  you  can  hurt  RHF  badlj^  by  this  sort  of  conduct.  Again,  be  a  cour- 
teous and  attentive  listener,  but  a  most  careful  talker. 

Telephone  Conversations — The  telephone  is  obviously  an  invaluable  communi- 
cation tool,  but  do  not  say  in  a  telephone  conversation  that  which  you  would  not 
care  to  see  in  print  tlie  next  day.  Once  again  the  concept  is  that  of  tact,  courtesj', 
patience,  understanding,  care  and  concern — but  no  commitments  in  the  naine  of 
the  Secretary,  and  no  "puffing." 

Mail — The  principles  I  have  spoken  of  thus  far  apply  as  well  to  all  mail  leaving 
the  Department.  When  preparing  correspondence  for  the  Secretary's  signature, 
or  when  reviewing  it,  never  treat  it  lightly,  no  matter  how  simple  the  subject. 
The  reasons  are  obvious — ;every  letter  portrays  the  image  of  our  office  and  of  the 
Department;  further  every  letter  reflects  the  substance  of  our  positions  and 
policies. 

Security — Recent  examples  should  be  sufficient  to  impress  upon  each  of  us 
the  critical  importance  of  the  general  securitj'  of  our  office  and  our  official,  as  well 
as  unofficial,  papers.  Every  Department  of  government  is  loaded  with  prying 
eyes — eyes  that  are  prjang  for  one  reason  or  another.  Be  assured  that  none  of 
this  prjdng  has  as  its  objective  the  enhancement  of  the  Nixon  Administration  or 
the  enhancement  of  our  Department.  We  deal  with  critical  issues  of  great  impor- 
tance to  many  diverse  groups  in  our  land.  Be  mindful  of  security  at  all  times; 
above  all  leave  a  clean  desk  when  you  leave  for  the  day  and  be  certain  that  critical 
papers  are  under  lock. 

The  effective  functioning  of  any  group  is  related  to  the  degree  of  cohesiveness 
and  common  purpose  which  has  been  established  and  accepted  throughout  the 
group. 

Let's  look  to  see  if  we  have  the  ingredients  in  our  make-up  to  generate  that 
sense  of  cohesiveness  and  common  purpose. 

Why  are  we  here? 

A.  Because  we  believe  in  President  Nixon  and  Secretary  Finch. 

B.  Because  we  are  dedicated  to  them  and  their  work. 

C.  Because  we  ask  only  to  serve;  not  to  be  served. 

D.  Because  we  have  no  greed  for  personal  aggrandizement. 

E.  Because  we  feel  a  deep  sense  of  personal  pride,  honor  and  hxiroility  in  being 
asked  to  serve. 

How  do  we  operate? 

First,  we  will  operate  as  the  Secretary  desires  us  to  operate. 

Second,  our  mission  is  to  do  just  as  much  for  the  Secretary  as  we  can  to  remove 
from  his  shoulders  unnecessary  burdens. 

Third,  we  do  our  work  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines  laid  down  by  the 
Secretary. 

Fourth,  we  are  staff  assistants  to  the  Secretary — not  decision  makers  or  policy 
makers,  even  though  we  may  well  have  a  strong  input  to  him  prior  to  the  moment 
decisions  are  made  and  policies  established.  Once  made,  we  support  them  to  the 
hilt! 

Fifth,  we  operate  in  such  a  way  as  to  reflect  credit  upon  the  Secretary  for 
choosing  us  to  occupy  the  important  positions  to  which  he  has  appointed  each 
of  us. 

91-331—73 7 


94 

Sixth,  we  do  not  throw  around  the  weight  of  the  Secretary's  Office.  We  are 
courteous  and  considerate  in  all  of  our  dealings  with  the  people  in  the  Depart- 
ment, yet  we  are  not  to  be  hoodwinked  or  misled  into  presenting  slanted  infor- 
mation to  the  Secretary. 

I  believe  that  each  of  us  can  agree  that  we  have  the  ingredients  required  to 
function  effectively  in  behalf  of  the  President  and  the  Secretary. 

Our  objective — to  assist,  to  the  fullest  extent,  the  Secretary  in  his  objective  to 
make  this  the  best  Department  in  the  Nixon  Administration;  to  establish  this 
Department  as  a  Department  on  the  move,  a  Department  composed  of 
compassionate  and  understanding  people  who  are  determined  to  generate  and 
manage  plans  and  programs  designed  to  enrich  the  lives  of  all  Americans ;  to  make 
this  Department  so  attractive  and  so  meaningful  in  its  work  that  members  of 
the  civil  service,  and  others  not  now  in  government,  will  be  eager  to  join  HEW  and 
assist  the  Secretary  to  achieve  his  objectives.  Imaginative,  creative,  dedicated,  and 
competent  people  form  the  heart  and  flesh,  the  bone,  sinew  and  muscle  of  any 
organization  whether  it  be  the  corner  grocery  store,  or  a  niajor  Department  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States.  We  must  have  them  and  we  must  work 
with  them  in  such  a  manner  that  they  can  realize  their  full  potential  in  the  best 
interests  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

Senator  Bayh.  Moving  to  the  question  which  I  asked,  as  you 
pointed  out  it  is  a  tough  question,  but  it  is  the  ultimate  question. 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is  indeed  and  that  is  the  way  I  answered  it  this 
morning  in  my  statement.  I  have  said  this,  and  I  made  that  state- 
ment during  the  Watergate  to  my  people,  if  anybody  puts  any  heat 
or  pressure  on  me  I  am  going  to  resign  and  go  back  to  southeastern 
Connecticut.  The  guys  in  the  FBI  know  that. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  think  j'ou  are  honest  and  you  mean  that  and  you 
will  do  3^our  best  to  accomplish  that. 

Now,  may  I  ask  one  or  Uvo  more  questions,  because  I  think  you 
realize  that  was  a  very  nebulous  answer  that  really  didn't  get  down 
to  the 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  mil  answer  it  specifically. 

By  statute  I  am  responsible  to  the  Attorney  General.  This  is  what 
the  Congress  has  said.  He  is  mj"  boss. 

Senator  Bayh.  Let  me  ask  a  couple  of  specifics  in  light  of  the 
fact  that  two  recent  Attorneys  General  have  also  been  the  campaign 
manager  for  their  President,  Robert  Kennedy  and  John  Mitchell, 
which  puts  a  difficult  situation  in  a  different  light. 

If  I  may  ask  you  to,  just  very  quickly,  hit  that  Ehrlichman  memo 
again  that  went  out  to  the  field.  The  response  I  thought  I  heard  you 
give  to  Senator  Gurney's  question  was  that  this  was  just  sort  of  a  pro 
forma  thing,  just  sort  of  a  standard  operating  procedure,  that  it 
happened  all  the  time.  Did  I  hear  you  answer  that  to  the  affirmative? 
It  seemed  contrary  to  everything  you  said  before. 

Mr.  Gray.  What  I  was  answering  there  with  Senator  Gurney  was 
the  fact  that  none  of  these  people  thought  there  was  anything  irregular 
about  this  because  of  the  fact  that  these  kinds  of  requests  do  come  to 
us,  from  the  White  House,  through  the  Deputy  Attorney  General's 
office,  or  through  the  Attorney  General's  office. 

Senator  Bayh.  If  you  look  at  the  Ehrlichman  memo,  that  prima 
facie  is  almost  like  you  were  asking  that  local  FBI  agent  to  be  the 
local  campaign  manager,  to  pick  out  the  sensitive  spots  so  we  can 
avoid  them,  to  pick  out  the  kej^  crime-related  events  that  are 
occurring  in  the  area  that  the  President  might  want  to  attend.  I 
don't  think  that  is — or  is  that  the  normal  procedure? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  that  is  not  what  was  asked  really.  All  this  involved 
was  reporting  back  what  are  the  criminal  justice  issues  in  your  area. 

Senator  Bayh.  Well,  I  suppose 


95 

Mr.  Gray.  I  said  earlier,  Senator  Bayh,  that  this  thing  was  wrong, 
it  was  improper,  and  John  Ehrlichman  has  said  this.  What  more  can 
I  say  in  response 

Senator  Bayh.  I  just  thought  I  misunderstood  you,  I  am  glad  I 
didn't  misunderstand  you. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  but  we  get  a  lot  of  these  tA^pes  of  requests.  The 
thing  that  was  lacking  here  was  the  judgment  by  my  people  who  said 
this  was  another  request  from  the  White  House,  another  request  that 
has  come  from  the  Deputy  Attorne}^  General. 

Senator  Bayh.  You  said  none  of  your  assistants  objected  to  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  they  didn't. 

Senator  Bayh.  Did  Mr.  Bishop  have  to  say  anything  plus  or  minus 
about  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  and  I  talked  to  him  personally. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  read  some  place  that  when  you  were  at  Quantico 
at  the  FBI  Academj'  there,  this  question  came  up  and  you  were 
quoted  as  saying,  "Wouldn't  j'ou  do  that  for  the  President."  Is  that 
an  inaccurate  quote? 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is  totally  and  completeh'  and  terribl}'  and  blatantly 
false. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  am  glad  I  asked  the  question  so  you  could  laj^ 
that  to  rest. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Bayh.  Now,  here  is 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  that  appeared  in  Time  magazine,  didn't  it? 

Senator  Bayh.  1  don't  know. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  that  was  in  the  writeup  in  Time  magazine,  I  think 
in  the  Januar}^  15  issue. 

Senator  Bayh.   You  answered  it  so  I  am  not  going  to  pursue  it. 

The  serious  question,  the  blockbuster  I  asked  a  minute  ago,  really 
the  test  you  are  going  to  have  to  face  in  my  estimation,  is  to  whom 
you  must  belong. 

First  to  yourself  and  to  your  conscience,  but  what  official?  You 
have  refused  to  buck  certain  memos  on  to  people  with  reference  to 
the  Watergate  and  this  kind  of  thing. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  was  June  19. 

Senator  Bayh.  But  apparently  you  feel  there  are  limits  beyond 
which  you  as  Du-ector  are  not  responsible  to  the  Attorney  General? 

Mr.  Gray.  Are? 

Senator  Bayh.  Are  not  responsible. 

In  other  words,  there  are  some  things  ^'^ou  just  don't  have  to  give 
to  the  Attorney  General? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  don't  feel  that  way  at  all  because  the  Attorney 
General  and  I  had  previously  agreed  in  this  case  that  there  would  be 
an  aggressively  pursued  investigation  and  we  would  hold  it  closely  in 
the  initial  phases  and  that  will  be  in  the  documents  that  I  have 
introduced  into  the  record  today,  sir.  I  was  not  operating  on  my  own 
and  I  won't.  You  know  I  have  had  some  conflict  over  this.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  when  I  was  Assistant  Attorney  General  I  almost  resigned 
because,  you  know,  it  came  awful  close  to  conscience  butting  up  to 
what  I  was  told  to  do  and  you  jolly  well  have  to  face  up  to  this  sort 
of  thing. 

Senator  Bayh.  Wliat  if  you  are  asked  by  the  Attorney  General 
or  by  Mr,  Haldeman,  by  a  WTiite  House  staff  official  very  close  to 


96 

the  President,  for  a  field  investigation,  an  FBI  check,  of  a  nationally 
known  newspaper  columnist  or  a  nationally  known  television  col- 
umnist, either  one  of  which  may  have  just  made  very  critical  remarks 
about  the  President  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  say,  "Mr.  President,  there  is  no  jurisdiction, 
and  we  have  no  right  to  conduct  any  such  investigation  unless  there 
is  jurisdiction." 

From  May  3,  the  first  day  I  talked  to  the  men  of  the  FBI,  1 
have  emphasized  that  we  will  not  proceed  beyond  the  perimeters 
of  our  jurisdiction  and  I  have  even  required  them  to  submit  to  me 
the  reason  for  an  investigation;  and  state  therein  where  doth  our 
jurisdiction  lie. 

Senator  Bayh.  If  it  is  for  a  Federal  job  application,  we  had  this 
one  unfortunately  where  a  television  commentator  was  being 
investigated  for 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  the  facts  on  that  but  if  the  request  came 
over  to  me  and  it  was  official,  and  on  its  face  correct,  and  stated  that 
"XYZ  is  being  considered  for  appomtment  to  the  position,  will  you 
please  conduct  a  background  investigation,"  I  probably  would  go 
ahead  and  do  it. 

Senator  Bayh.  You  would  say  the  same  thing  about  your  concern 
for  candidates  or  Members  of  Congress? 

jVIr.  Gray.  1  don't  know  what  the  same  thing  is,  Senator. 

Senator  Bayh.  If  you  were  asked  for  a  field  check? 

Mr.  Gray.  If  I  were  ordered  to  conduct  an  applicant  investi- 
gation— I  see  what  you  mean,  if  I  were  ordered  to  conduct  a  field 
check 

Senator  Bayh.  In  other  words,  you  have  a  hot  campaign  and 
somebody  wants  to  get  something  on  somebody  else,  you  would 
say  no. 

Mr.  Gray.  No.  I  would  say  no.  No  jurisdiction. 

Senator  Bayh.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  reserve  my  questions. 
I  don't  w^ant  to  monopolize  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Marlow. 

Senator  Cook.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Gray,  1  am  fast  reading  tlirough  the  Cleveland  speech  and  I 
am  finding  it  very  diflScult  to  find  political  consequences,  I  must 
confess  to  you.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  we  start  taking  paragraphs 
out  of  context  in  relation  to  then  full  meaning  on  freedom  under  law 
and  the  right  of  a  trial  by  jury,  then  I  would  hope  that  we  don't 
go  so  far  as  that  the  liberal-minded  would  deny  the  freedom  of  the 
podium  to  the  individuals  in  this  country. 

There  is  something  that  I  really  would  like  to  discuss  with  you. 

Senator  Bayh.  Will  the  Senator  yield?  May  I  say  that  the  whole 
speech  is  in  the  record  and  I  am  sure  that  he  did  not  intend  to  infer 
I  was  taking  the  speech  out  of  context. 

The  Chairman.  The  whole  speech  was  put  in  the  record  this 
morning. 

Senator  Cook.  I  merely  made  the  point  to  the  Senator.  He  quoted  a 
small  part  of  it.  For  the  benefit  of  the  press,  I  would  love  to — if  I  had 
the  time — read  the  whole  speech,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  in  the  record. 

Senator  Cook.  I  must  say  to  you  I  doubt  very  seriously  that  there  is 
anybody  sitting  back  at  those  tables  there  who  will  read  the  whole 


97 

speech  simply  because  it  is  in  the  record.  I  don't  want  to  do  them  an 
injustice,  but  I  doubt  seriously  that  they  would  do  that. 

Mr.  Gray,  on  our  list  of  people  requesting  to  testify,  appears  the 
name  of  Mr.  Jack  Anderson,  and  also  the  name  of  Mr.  Les  Whitten, 
who  is  an  associate  of  Mr.  Anderson.  Now,  I  would  like  for  you  to  dis- 
cuss the  actions  of  your  Department  in  regard  to  the  altercation  with 
Mr.  Wliitten  in,  I  tliink,  January,  and  also  the  great  hue  and  cry — if  it 
be  true,  b}^  the  way,  3^our  entire  organization  should  be  condemned — 
that  his  first  amenclment  rights  were  violated ;  whether  Mr.  Whitten 
Avas  indeed  involved  in,  and  was  in  the  possession  of,  documents  that 
were  stolen  from  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs  and,  to  the  best  of  your 
abilit3^  to  put  into  this  record  whether  the  suggestion  of  a  search  war- 
rant originated  with  your  shop,  or  Avith  the  U.S.  attorney's  oihce,  be- 
cause I  would  like  to  know  whether  3rour  Department  is  shadow  boxing 
with  the  first  amendment,  or  whether  it  isn't. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

This  case  arose  as  a  result  of  the  theft  of  documents  from  the  Bureau 
of  Indian  Affairs.  We  had  been  directed  by  the  Department  of  Justice 
to  look  into  this  matter,  to  conduct  an  investigation,  and,  indeed,  we 
began  such  an  investigation.  Also,  this  particular  column  was  printing 
excerpts  from  various  of  these  documents,  as  I  recall,  stating,  in  fact, 
that  this  column  had  access  to  these  documents,  and  was  going  to  print 
these  documents. 

So  we  did  endeavor  to  track  down  these  documents  in  many  areas, 
in  many  parts  of  the  country.  It  was  again  one  of  these  investigations 
that  was  going  from  the  office  of  origin  to  many  other  field  offices 
through  the  nature  of  leads,  and  it  is  true  that  we  did  have  an  inform- 
ant in  this  case,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Metropolitan  Police 
Department,  and  it  is  true  that  the  Metropolitan  Police  Department 
advised  us  that  this  informant  had  information  to  the  effect  that  these 
documents  were  in  a  certain  location  in  North  Carolina,  that  these 
documents  wxre  initially  going  to  be  dehvered  at  North  Carolina  to 
representatives  of  this  column  for  a  sum  of  money,  and  then  later  we 
were  informed  that  the  documents  were  going  to  be  shipped  to  Wash- 
ington and  would  come  in  through  a  bus — a  commercial  bus — and 
that  the  documents  were  going  to  be  picked  up  at  the  bus  station. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  follo\ving  document:) 

Mr.  Gray.  Upon  checking  the  records,  I  have  learned  that  information  received 
from  the  informant  was  to  the  effect  that  he  was  to  pick  up  the  files  in  Pembroke, 
North  Carolina,  in  his  automobile,  and  transport  them  back  to  Washington,  D.C., 
for  transfer  to  Jack  Anderson.  Anita  Collins  was  to  accompany  him  on  this  trip, 
and  this  trip  was  to  occur  within  a  few  days  after  January  23,  1973. 

Senator  Cook.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  really  came  from  South 
Dakota,  did  the}'  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  realh^  know  that,  Senator  Cook.  I  couldn't 
respond  to  that.  I  don't  know  that  much  detail,  but  I  will  provide  a 
response  for  the  record. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsecpiently  submitted  the  following  document:) 

Mr.  Gray.  Upon  reviewing  our  records,  I  found  that  they  came  from  Rosebud, 
South  Dakota. 

Senator  Cook.  All  right. 

Mr.  Gray.  We  were  also  informed  that  when  the  informant  and  a 
woman,  Anita  Collins,  went  to  the  bus  station  to  pick  up  these  docu- 
ments the  informant  asked,  "What  do  we  do  if  the  police  apprehend 


98 

us,"  and  lie  was  told,  "We  say  we  are  returning  these  to  the  Govern- 
ment." 

They  picked  up  the  documents.  They  returned  them  to  Hank 
Adams'  home  or  his  place  of  residence  at  the  time  which  I  believe  was  a 
Holiday  Inn.  That  area,  of  course,  was  under  surveillance  and  our 
agents  were  watching  it. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document:) 

Mr.  Gray.  Upon  checking  the  records,  I  have  learned  that  Hank  Adams  did  not 
live  at  the  Holiday  Inn  at  the  time  the  documents  were  delivered  to  him,  but 
rather  across  the  street  from  the  HoUday  Inn. 

We  also  had  information  that  that  evening  or  the  following  day, 
the  transfer  for  money  was  to  be  made,  and  when  an  individual  showed 
up  we  waited  until  these  documents  were  brought  out  of  the  house 
and  the  people  actually  had  them  in  their  possession  before  we  moved 
in  to  make  the  arrest,  so  that  it  was  in  our  judgment  a  valid  arrest. 
We  had  been  in  contact  with  the  Department  of  Justice  attorneys 
who  had  been  apprised  of  the  facts.  The  arrest  was  authorized  by 
the  assistant  U.S.  attorney.  That  basically  takes  it  right  up  to  the 
arrest  position. 

Senator  Cook.  It  is  my  understanding  that  it  is  Mr.  Wliitten's 
contention  that  he  was  in  the  process  of  returning,  which  seems  rather 
strange  that  one  would  pick  them  up,  two  people  would  pick  them 
up,  at  a  bus  station  and  deliver  them  to  someone's  room  so  that  some- 
one else  could  bring  them  back  to  the  BIA  or  somebody  else  the  next 
day. 

Mr.  Gray.  We  had  no  information  to  that  effect  from  the  informant, 
and  we  have  checked  with  everyone  at  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs 
that  we  could  check  with,  and  not  one  of  them  said  that  they  had 
any  such  appointment  with  Air.  Adams.  But  we  also  know  from  our 
investigation  that  much  mil  be  made  of  the  fact  that  a  week  or  10 
days  or  so  prior  to  that,  Mr.  Adams  had  said  to  a  Bureau  of  Indian 
Affairs  official,  Mr.  Oxendine,  just  in  passing  ^\'ith  regard  to  the  return 
of  the  documents,  "Maybe  they  will  be  returned,  maybe  they  won't. 
I  don't  know,"  Something  to  that  effect,  I  know.  No  commitment 
was  made  and  Mr.  Oxendine  was  asked  bj'^  our  investigators  poiat 
blank  whether  or  not  any  commitment  had  been  made  to  return  any 
documents  and  his  testimony  or  his  statement  to  our  interviewer 
was  "no." 

Senator  Cook.  Was  Mr.  Wliitten  apprehended  by  your  asenta 
with,  these  documents  in  his  possession? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  was  actually  standing  A\ith  the  box  containing  the 
documents  in  his  hands  and  the  seats  in  his  automobile  were  placed 
in  a  down  position  indicating,  certainly  at  least  to  us,  they  were  going 
to  be  placed  in  that  automobile.  One  box  was  on  the  ground  ri^ht 
there  beside  Mr.  Whitten. 

Senator  Cook.  My  understanding  is  it  constituted  some  150  pounds 
of  Avhat,  2,000  pounds  of  documents,  that  apparently  they  surmised 
were  removed  from  the  Bureau,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct.  Senator. 

Senator  Cook.  Let  me  ask  you  one  of  the  problems  that  puzzles 
me.  Was  it  at  the  request  of  3^our  Department  or  was  it  at  the  request 
of  the  U.S.  attorne_y  that  apparently  you  proceeded  further  and  by 
reason  of  subpena  to  acquire  the  telephone  records  of  Mr.  Anderson? 


99 

Mr.  Gray.  No.  This  was,  actually,  an  action  initiatied  by  the 
assistant  U.S.  attorney  in  charge  of  the  Federal  grand  jury,  and  these 
subpenas  were  prepared  in  his  office  and  were  executed,  I  believe, 
by  the  assistant  clerk  of  the  grand  jury.  The  time  frame  was  picked 
out  and  there  was  no  attempt  made  to  inquire  into  anyone's  sources, 
])ut  attempts  were  made  to  locate  the  documents  that  still  remained 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs.  Of  the  toll  calls, 
96  were  selected  as  the  most  probable  because  of  their  location. 
This  is  the  reason  for  them.  We  didn't  just  go  through  all  the  toll 
records  and  call  everybody  and  check  everybody.  That  was  not  the 
])ur])ose  at  all. 

Senator  Cook.  Well,  let  me  ask  you  the  hard  question.  If  it  really 
wasn't  the  purpose  wlw  was  it  necessary  to  subpena  records  way 
prior  to  the  actual  Indian  takeover  of  the  BIA  buildings  because 
that  occurred  on  November  3.  It  is  my  understanding  that  the 
grand  jury,  through  the  U.S.  attorney,  requested  through  the  sub- 
pena that  the  records  be  acquired  for  some  60  days  or  even  longer, 
6  months. 

Mr.  Gray.  Six  months,  sir. 

Senator  Cook.  Six  months  prior  to  that  time.  Wby  was  that  neces- 
sary? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  what  the  assistant  U.S.  attorney's  inten- 
tions might  have  been  there.  I  can  surmise  that  he  may  have  been 
looking  for  any  calls  that  would  indicate  a  prior  concert  of  action  or 
arrangement  to  participate  in  this  kind  of  tiling  in  return  for  some- 
thing. I  don't  know.  This  is  a  complete  surmise  on  my  part,  but 
suffice  it  to  say  when  the  toll  calls  were  obtained  we  onh^  looked  at 
those  following  the  event  itself  in  order  to  locate  the  papers.  We 
were  not  looking  for  something  that  happened  before. 

Senator  Cook,  Has  any  action  been  taken  on  any  records,  on  any 
facilities  in  regard  to  either  Mr.  Anderson  or  Mr.  Whitten,  his  asso- 
ciate, since  the  2d  day  of  or  the  15th  day  of  February,  when  the  grand 
jury  returned  a  no  bill? 

Mr.  Gray.  Has  any  action  been  taken? 

Senator  Cook.  By  your  Department. 

Air.  Gray.  Against  them? 

Senator  Cook.  No;  have  any  activities  in  regard  to  any  records 
that  you  may  have  had,  have  you — are  you  continuing  this  or  have 
you — because  of  the  no  biU  return,  have  you  discontinued  that,  or 
are  you  pursuing  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  it  has  stopped;  the  grand  jury  has  spoken. 

Senator  Cook.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  recess  now 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Chairman,  until  when  will  you  recess? 

The  Chairman.   10:30  tomorrow  mornmg. 

Senator  Byrd.  Could  we  not  pursue  this  for  a  little  while?  I  have 
waited  all  day  patiently  and  I  have  only  a  few  questions.  I  may  not 
be  able  to  be  here  tomorrow. 

Thank  you. 

Mr.  Gray,  I  want  to  commend  you  on  the  statement  which  you 
made  earher  today. 

Mr.  Gray'.  Thank  ^''ou,  Senator  Bj^rd. 


100 

Senator  Byrd.  This  nomination,  Mr.  Gray,  troubles  me  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  it  is  the  first  time  that  the  Senate  will  have  had  an 
opportunity  to  pass  on  the  confirmation  of  an  FBI  Director.  We  have 
been  saying  a  lot  around  here  about  the  Senate's  constitutional 
powers,  and  its  proper  place  in  the  system  of  checks  and  balances, 
and  so  on,  so  I  think  that  the  Senate  ought  to  approach  its  prerog- 
ative in  this  instance  with  a  great  deal  of  diligence.  I  have  been 
concerned  with  respect  to  your  apparent  political  activities  over  a 
long  period  of  time.  If  this  were  a  nomination  to  a  Cabinet  office,  it 
wouldn't  trouble  me  at  all  in  that  regard,  because  I  would  expect  the 
President  to  name  people  to  Cabinet  offices  who  have  been  active 
politically  in  his  behalf. 

But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  is  the  directorship  of  the  FBI,  it 
does  concern  me  because  I  fear  that  the  FBI  could,  under  a  politically 
oriented  Director,  become  the  political  arm  of  the  White  House — 
whether  it  be  a  Democrat  in  the  White  House  or  a  Republican  in  the 
White  House.  I  think  this  would  be  a  danger  to  the  protection  of  the 
constitutional  liberties  of  all  of  our  people.  I  think  the  politicization 
of  the  FBI  could — I  am  not  saying  it  would  happen  at  all — but  it 
could  be  the  first  step  toward  the  conversion  of  the  FBI  into  a  sort  of 
American  Gestapo. 

Now,  you  have  assured  the  committee  that  you  will  not  be  active 
politically  in  the  future.  Of  course,  Mr.  Nixon  will  probably  not  be 
active  in  the  future,  either.  He  has  indicated  that  he  has  run  his  last 
time,  and  he  has  4  years  in  which  to  serve,  but  I  think  that  the  com- 
mittee and  the  Senate  ought  to  be  very,  very  careful  about  confirming 
a  nominee  whose  background  has  involved  a  great  many  partisan 
political  activities  of  service  to  his  party.  Of  course,  I  think  we  could 
avoid  this  risk,  with  all  due  respect  to  you  personally.  I  have  certainly 
nothing  against  you  personally;  I  think  you  are  a  very  charming  man; 
I  have  no  question  as  to  your  honesty,  your  character,  your  integrity. 
But  I  think  the  Senate  could  avoid  this  risk  entirely  if  it  insisted  that 
the  President  send  up  a  nomination  of  someone  who  had  not  been 
politicall}^  active  to  the  extent  that  I  am  led  to  understand  that  you 
have  been. 

Now,  I  have  no  secret  files.  All  the  information  I  have  has  been 
gleaned  from  press  accounts  which  are  available  to  the  public,  and  I 
don't  consider  it  my  role  to  try  to  persuade  any  other  Senator  to 
interpret  press  accounts  as  I  interpret  them.  I  have  not  approached 
any  other  Senator  with  the  idea  of  tr^dng  to  persuade  him  to  vote 
against  your  confumation.  I  don't  presently  intend  to. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  I  have  to  weigh  the  facts  as  I  see  them  and  as  I 
understand  them,  and  reach  m}''  conclusion,  and  that  is  as  far  as  I  now 
think  my  role  goes  in  this  instance. 

It  has  been  said  that  you  have  been  very  active  in  behalf  of  the  Re- 
publican Party  for  several  years.  Would  you  explain  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  I  would  be  happy  to  put  my  activity  on  the 
record  here. 

On  July  1,  2,  3  or  4,  after  June  30,  1960,  I  left  the  Pentagon  for 
room  361,  Senate  Office  Building,  and  served  on  the  staff  of  the  then 
Vice  President,  Richard  Nixon,  and  my  first  assignment  was  to  work 
with  analysts  regardingjmail.  Every  assignment  I  received  thereafter 


101 

was  logistical  in  nature — go  out  and  find  space,  put  together  a  group 
of  lawyers  to  answer  mail,  find  volunteers,  rent  the  basement  of  the 
wSolar  Building,  and  that  type  of  thing. 

Then,  of  course,  I  returned  to  Connecticut  in  early  January  of  1961, 
and  the  first  ]5olitical  operation  that  I  can  recall  was  Mobilization  of 
Republican  Enterj^rise,  which  was  a  thing  that  Congressman  Bob 
Ellsworth  was  heading  up  to  bring  together  Repubhcans  at  the  grass- 
roots— -precinct  worker  type  people — -ready  to  go  out  and  ring  door- 
bells. Everybody  Avas  given  a  portfolio  or  a  kit  and  told  to  go  out  and 
do  these  kinds  of  things. 

I  did  nothing  with  the  kit.  The  kit  I  destroyed  last  year  when  I  was 
cleaning  up. 

From  May  to  June — the  middle  of  June  1962 — I  served  with 
Angelo  Santaniello  to  try  to  help  get  the  gubernatorial  nomination  for 
Peter  Mariani,  an  electrical  contractor,  from  southeastern  Con- 
necticut. For  roughly  45  days,  I  did  the  in-house  work,  and  wrote 
Pete's  speeches,  and  rode  around  with  him  to  round  up  some  delegates 
who  would  vote  for  Pete  at  the  Republican  State  Convention  to  get 
the  gubernatorial  nomination  of  the  Republican  Party. 

From  June  to  November  of  1962,  I  served  as  finance  chairman  of 
the  New  London  Republican  Town  Committee.  In  checking  the 
records  back  there,  they  can't  even  remember  me  in  the  Committee 
of  One  Hundred,  but  I  know  the  Republicans  set  up  a  Committee  of 
One  Hundred  and  I  know  that  I  was  assigned  to  the  campaign  opera- 
tions subcommittee  chaired  by  Joe  Burns,  vice  president  and  general 
counsel  of  Fuller  Brush.  Even  Joe  didn't  remember  that  I  served  on  it. 
But  I  know  I  served  on  it.  I  know  I  attended  one  meeting  near  the 
Wilbur  Cross  Parkway  in  Hamden,  at  a  place  called  the  Carriage  Inn, 
in  1966. 

Also  in  1966,  Bill  Cottison,  an  advance  man  for  former  Vice  Presi- 
dent Nixon,  came  to  New  London  and  introduced  himself,  and  said  he 
was  there  to  advance  Mr.  Nixon's  appearance  on  behalf  of  Joe  Gold- 
berg. I  referred  him  to  the  Republican  town  chairman  and  let  him 
work  with  her  to  make  regular  arrangements  he  had  to  make. 

In  1968,  I  met  with  Mr.  Nixon  in  New  York  in  his  office  in  January, 
spoke  with  liim,  and  just  talked  about  20  minutes  in  general  terms, 
and  told  him  that  I  hoped  that  he  was  going  to  run  for  the  Presi- 
dency. Later  in  1968,  I  wTote  a  letter  for  the  candidate's  signature  on 
the  Small  Business  Investment  Company  industry,  settmg  forth  liis 
position  in  response  to  questions  that  that  industry  had  asked  him.  I 
was  asked  to  do  so  because  at  that  time  I  was  a  member  of  the  board 
of  governors  of  the  National  Association  of  Small  Business  Invest- 
ment Companies.  I  was  not  asked  to  participate  in  the  campaign  in 
1968,  and  I  did  not.  I  stayed  right  in  my  law  office  and  practiced  law 
and  wrote  this  letter. 

And  then  I  served — in  fact,  I  didn't  think  I  was  going  to  get  into 
Government.  I  didn't  think  I  was  going  to  be  invited  to  join  the 
Nixon  administration.  The  newspaper  publisher  in  my  town,  a  fellow 
named  Barnard  Colby,  of  the  New  London  Day,  got  a  letter  from 
Harry  Flemmg  to  recommend  people  for  Government,  and  he  said, 
*T  sent  3'our  name  in,  Pat." 

I  got  one  of  the  forms  back ;  I  filled  the  bloody  form  out,  and  sent  it 
back  in. 


102 

In  the  meantime,  I  had  been  trjang  to  get  in  touch  with  Bob  Finch 
in  Sacramento  to  say,  "I  really  want  a  place  in  this  administration  to 
help  in  the  transition."  It  wasn't  until  January  12,  1969,  that  a  meet- 
ing was  finally  arranged  for  me  and  Bob  Finch  in  the  Plaza  Hotel  in 
New  York  on  a  Sunday  morning  at  breakfast,  and  he  said,  "I  would 
like  you  to  come  to  HEW  with  me,"  and  that  is  the  way  I  came  to 
HEW. 

May  I  say.  Senator,  if  I  am  such  a  big  friend  of  the  President  and 
such  a  partisan  politician,  how  come  I  am  outside  looking  in  and  trying 
real  hard  to  get  in?  That  is  the  situation  I  was  in. 

In  1970,  after  leaving  HEW,  I  attended  one  meeting  of  the 
Republican  State  platform  committee,  and  I  was  assigned  to  the 
education  subcommittee.  I  attended  one  hearing  in  Hartford.  I 
could  not  attend  any  more  because  at  the  same  time  I  was  embarked 
upon  a  program  in  the  South  trying  to  assist  in  making  the  transition 
from  the  dual  to  the  unitary  school  system  as  a  special  consultant  to 
the  Cabinet  Committee  on  Education. 

In  1970,  in  the  Robert  H.  Steele  for  Congress  campaign  in 
Connecticut,  I  agreed  to  meet  Counselor  Finch  at  the  airport,  took 
him  to  a  testimonial  dinner  in  Norwich — actually  it  was  not  Norwich, 
it  was  outside  of  Norwich,  at  a  boys'  school,  and  served  as  a  toast- 
master  at  dinner  that  evening — and  in  1970,  I  visited  Tom  Meskill's 
staff  during  the  transition  on  what  to  do  about  personnel,  how  to 
handle  personnel. 

Then  in  1971,  I  gave  $250  to  the  Republican  Party  in  Connecticut 
and  became  what  is  called  a  keyman  in  Connecticut.  It  is  another 
gimmick  to  raise  money.  You  know,  if  you  give  250  bucks,  you  get  a 
keyman  card,  and  that  is  the  extent  of  it. 

Senator  Byrd,  I  wouldn't  want  my  remarks  to  be  taken  in  any 
way,  if  you  please,  sir,  to  be  in  any  sense  of  the  word  a  backing  off  from 
the  thought  that  I  left  the  U.S.  Navy  to  help  Richard  Nixon  be  elected 
President.  I  am  a  Nixon  supporter;  I  admire  and  I  respect  and  I 
have  an  affection  for  the  President.  I  have  for  every  President. 

Senator  Byrd.  Well,  Mr.  Gra}^  I  have  a  considerable  amount  of 
respect  for  him,  too. 

You  indicated   earlier   today  you   "have   never  been   a  partisan 

guy." 

Mr.  Chairman,  has  anyone  made  reference  to  the  statement  by  Mr. 
Gray  when  he  was  at  HEW  when  he  was  speaking  to  appointees  in 
the  Department? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  they  have,  sir,  and  we  put  that  in  the  record. 

Senator  Byrd.  The  statement  has  been  put  in  the  record? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  Very  well.  Were  smy  excerpts  read  from  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  It  sounded  very  partisan,  did  it  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  I  think,  as  I  said  to  Senator  Bayh,  I  think  you 
also  have  got  to  read  the  last  paragraph.  Wli at  I  was  trying  to  do  was  really 
point  out  how  important  it  is  to  come  into  Government  service  and 
to  serve  well  and  not  seek  personal  aggrandizement,  and  I  pointed  out 
very  carefully  that  each  party  recognizes  this.  There  was  no  knifing  or 
cutting  in  that  speech.  You  know,  when  I  think  in  terms  of 
partisanship,  I  think  in  terms  of  knifing  and  cutting  and  hammering 
at  people,  and  I  was  not  doing  that.  Maybe  that  is  not  the  way  to 
think  about  partisanship. 


103 

Senator  Byrd.  I  do  not  necessarily  think  that,  Mr.  Gray;  I  just 
think  you  made  a  pretty  partisan  speech. 

Mr/ Gray.  Right. 

Senator  Byrd.  As  a  Democrat,  I  could  make  that  same  speech  and 
feel  that  I  was  whooping  it  up  for  my  party. 

Mr.  Gray.  You  see,  I  have  not  served  in  political  life,  Senator 
Byrd,  as  long  as  you  have,  and  that  is  why  I  came  out  of  the  Navy 
with  perhaps  an  idealism,  and  I  see  that  same  idealism  in  political 
leaders,  and  you  know,  to  be  a  political  leader  is  not  really  a  bad 
thing  because  the  political  leaders  make  the  democratic  process  work. 
I  do  not  see  what  is  so  bad  about  being  a  political  leader  and  trying 
to  do  right  and  to  do  well  when  you  happen  to  hold  a  public  position 
of  trust  and  confidence,  and  that  is  what  I — when  you  read  that 
speech,  that  is  what  I  was  trying  to  tell  those  young  people  over  there, 
the  facts  of  life. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  wish  more  people  felt  that  way  about  political 
leaders,  Mr.  Gray. 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  thc}^  should  feel  that  way  because  we  ask  an  awful 
lot  of  our  political  leaders,  and  we  kick  them  around  plenty,  too. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  I  find — I  will  not  belabor  the  point  since  the 
statement  is  going  in  the  record — but  I  find  it  a  little  hard  to  reconcile 
what  I  consider  to  be  a  pretty  partisan  speech  in  the  context  of  where 
you  were  then  making  it  and,  in  the  time  frame,  it  is  a  little  hard  to 
reconcile  that  with  a  statement  that  you  never  have  been  a  partisan 

guy. 

i  am  only  concerned  about  the  partisanship  now  as  we  approach  the 
confirmation  of  this  nomination. 

Mr.  Gra}^,  earlier  reference  was  made  to  the  O'Donnell  memo 
urging  that  you  go  to  Cleveland.  I  believe  you  stated  that  3-0U  ques- 
tioned the  propriety  of  this  memo? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did. 

Senator  Byrd.  Whom  did  you  ask  about  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  asked  our  Cnme  Research  Division  to  look  into  this 
and  tell  me  if  it  was  a  political  thing.  If  it  was,  I  was  not  going,  and 
that  is  exactly  what  T  said. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  did  you  accept  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  In  June,  early  June.  Mid-June,  mid-June  somewhere 
around  the  16th  of  June,  in  that  time  frame,  16,  17,  18.  We  will 
provide  the  acceptance  letter  for  the  record. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  you  indicated  you  had  received  a  request 
directly  from  the  Cleveland  City  Club  speech 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes.  sir;  you  will  have  this  in  the  record,  too. 

Senator  Byrd.  What  was  the  date  of  that  request? 

Mr.  Gray.  It  was  in  that  vicinity,  but  I  will  have  to  put  that  in 
the  record.  We  will  have  to  put  it  in  the  record,  sir. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documents  for  the 
record :) 

In  checking  our  records,  I  find  that  the  initial  invitation  from  the  Cleveland 
City  Club  was  contained  in  the  June  13,  1972,  memorandum  from  Mr.  O'Donnell. 
Our  files  did  show  that  the  Cleveland  City  Club  had  previously  requested  the 
appearance  of  Director  Hoover  in  1968  and  again  in  1970.  Mr.  Hoover  had  not 
been  able  to  accept  either  commitment,  but  it  had  been  recommended  to  him  that 
an  FBI  official  appear  before  this  group,  if  agreeable  with  them.  I  submit  for  the 
record  pertinent  correspondence  from  our  files  covering  these  points. 


104 

The  White  House 


Washington,  D.C.,  June  IS,  1972. 
Memorandum  for:  Hon.  L.  Patrick  Gray. 
Prom:  Patrick  E.  O'Donnell. 
Subject:  Freedom's  Forum— The  City  Club,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

The  City  Club  has  asked  our  assistance  in  attempting  to  secure  your  participa- 
tion as  a  key  speaker  sometime  during  the  period  following  July  1,  1972.  Since 
its  founding  fifty  j'ears  ago,  Cleveland's  Citj^  Club  has  been  a  focus  and  one  of 
the  bulwarks  of  freedom  of  speech  in  one  of  America's  great  cities.  The  Club 
maintains  a  deep  interest  in  affairs  of  government,  economics  and  politics,  both 
national  and  international.  It  offers  a  prestigious  meeting  place  for  the  open 
discussion  of  important  social,  political  and  economic  problems. 

They  meet  ever.y  Friday  at  noon  and  have  a  300  maximum  attendance.  However, 
if  you  were  inclined,  they  could  "go  public"  and  provide  almost  a  crowd  of  any 
size  you  might  desire.  Both  Secretaries  Hodgson  and  Shultz  have  recently  ad- 
dressed the  Club  and  just  recently  Ambassador  Bush  delivered  a  well-received 
speech. 

With  Ohio  being  crucially  vital  to  our  hopes  in  November,  we  would  hope  you 
will  assign  this  forum  some  priority  in  planning  your  schedule.  In  the  event  you 
are  interested,  I  have  full  background  material  available.  Incidentally,  Under 
Secretary  of  Commerce  Jim  Lynn  is  quite  familiar  with  the  Club.  Many  thanks. 


June  16,   1972. 
To:  Mr.  Bishop. 
From:  M.  A.  Jones. 

Subject:  The    City  Club,   Cleveland,   Ohio,  request   for   appearance  of  Acting 
Director  Gray. 

A  memorandum  dated  June  13,  1972,  from  Mr.  Patrick  E.  O'Donnell,  advised 
Mr.  Gray  that  his  assistance  had  been  requested  to  secure  Mr.  Gray's  participa- 
tion as  a  key  speaker  before  The  City  Club  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  sometime  after 
July  1,  1972.  He  pointed  out  that  the  Club  meets  Friday  at  noon,  and  although 
they  have  a  maximum  attendance  of  300,  they  could  "go  public"  if  Mr.  Gray 
were  so  inclined.  He  commented  that  Secretary  Hodgson  and  Shultz  recently 
addressed  the  Club  as  w^ell  as  Ambassador  Bush.  The  Club  offers  a  prestigious 
meeting  place  for  the  open  discussion  of  important  social,  political,  and  economic 
problems. 

The  Cleveland  Office  has  advised  that  The  City  Club  has  no  pohtical  connec- 
tions and  actually  the  majority  of  the  members  could  be  classified  as  "Hberals." 
The  Club  engages  in  discussing  controversial  subjects  and  it  is  entirely  possible 
that  some  embarrassing  questions  could  be  put  to  Mr.  Gray  which  might  prove 
embarrassing  to  him  and  the  Bureau.  They  also  noted  that  these  meetings  are 
carried  live  on  local  radio  stations. 

Although  Cleveland  points  out  that  this  Club  discusses  controversial  subjects, 
it  is  beheved  that  it  might  be  advantageous  for  Mr.  Gray  to  appear  before  such 
a  group.  As  indicated,  the  Club  is  dominated  by  liberals  and  these  are  the  type 
of  people  we  should  be  contacting  in  an  effort  to  "convert  them." 

Recommendation:  Mr.  Gray  may  desire  to  accept  this  invitation  and,  if  so,  he 
should  indicate  some  Friday  after  July  1st  when  he  could  appear.  (Due  to  other 
commitments,  it  would  appear  that  a  JFridaj'^  in  August  or  early  Fall  might  be  the 
most  convenient.)  Thereafter,  additional  details  will  be  obtained  from  Mr. 
O'Donnell. 


June  27,  1972. 
To:  Mr.  Felt. 
From:  T.  E.  Bishop. 

Subject:  The  City  Club,   Cleveland,   Ohio,  Request  for  Appearance  of  Acting 
Director  Gray,  August  11,  1972. 

In  a  memorandum  from  Jones  to  Bishop  dated  6/16/72,  there  was  set  forth 
details  concerning  an  invitation  extended  to  Mr.  Gray  by  The  City  Club  of 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  for  him  to  be  a  key  speaker  at  a  Friday  noon  meeting  of  the 
Club  sometime  after  July  1,  1972.  It  was  recommended  and  approved  that  Mr. 
Gray  accept  the  invitation  if  possible.  Mr.  Gray  noted,  "I  will  do  it  but  push  it 
out  ahead.  Check  with  Mrs.  Neenan." 

After  consulting  with  Mrs.  Neenan,  on  6/26/72  Bishop  advised  Patrick  E, 
O'Donnell  of  The  White  House,  through  whom  the  invitation  had  been  extended, 


•  105 

that  Mr.  Gray  could  make  this  appearance  on  August  11,  1972.  O'DonneU  stated 
that  he  would  check  with  Lawrence  Robinson,  Executive  Director  of  The  City- 
Club  of  Cleveland  (telephone — area  code  216,  861-1260),  to  ascertain  if  this 
date  is  satisfactory  and  advise  Bishop  of  the  result  on  6/27/72. 

On  6/27/72,  Mr.  O'DonneU  advised  Bishop  that  Mr.  Robinson  had  informed 
him  that  the  Club  would  be  delighted  to  have  Mr.  Gray  speak  to  it  at  its  noon 
meeting  on  Friday,  August  11,  1972.  He  advised  that  Mr.  Robinson  stated  that 
he  would  furnish  Mr.  Graj^  additional  details  concerning  the  Club  and  the  meeting 
in  question  in  a  letter  to  be  forthcoming  in  the  immediate  future. 

Recommendation:  That  Crime  Records  Division  begin  preparing  an  ap- 
propriate speech  for  use  by  INIr.  Gray  on  August  11,  1972. 


J.  B.  Robinson  Co., 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  June  28,  1972. 
L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 

Acting  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 
Department  of  Justice,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Director  Gray:  Thank  you  for  agreeing  to  speak  at  the  Citv  Club  of 
Cleveland  on  August  11,  1972! 

Patrick  E.  O'DonneU  has  been  enormously  helpful  to  us  and  we  are  writing  at 
his  suggestion. 

Our  usual  schedule  is  to  have  lunch  at  Noon,  followed  by  a  half  hour  talk 
beginning  at  12:30  p.m.  Questions  follow  until  we  close  at  1:30  p.m. 

We  will  have  an  office  available  for  your  private  use  before  and  after  j'our 
presentation. 

I  wiU  be  in  touch  with  your  Assistant  Director  Bishop  with  additional  detaUs. 

We  are  looking  forward  to  the  privUege  of  having  you  here. 
Sincerely  yours, 

Larry  Robinson. 


The  City  Club, 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  July  7,  1972. 
L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 

Acting  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 
Department  of  Justice,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Director  Gray:  We  are  very  pleased  that  you  have  accepted  our  invita- 
tion to  speak  at  our  Forum  on  Friday,  August  11.  As  you  may  know  this  Forum 
has  brought  many  weU  known  people  to  Cleveland  and  raised  many  crucial  issues 
in  the  past.  Many  of  our  speakers  have  used  this  opportunity  for  a  major  policy 
statement. 

The  Forum  is  carried  live  by  one  radio  station  (WCLV)  and  rebroadcasted  in 
its  entirety  by  four  others.  We  also  get  full  TV  and  press  coverage. 

We  begin  with  lunch  at  noon,  go  on  the  air  at  12:30  with  jour  speech,  and 
close  with  a  half  hour  of  questions  till  1 :30.  Please  plan  your  presentation  to  last 
25-30  minutes. 

WiU  you  please  send  us  some  biographical  materials  and  the  topic  of  your 
speech  so  that  we  may  give  j'our  coming  adequate  publicity. 

Thanks  again  for  planning  to  be  with  us  on  June  16.  We  look  forward  to  seeing 
iou  then. 

Sincerely  yours, 

Alan  Davis,  Executive  Director. 


July  12,  1972. 
Larry  Robinson, 
./.  B.  Robinson  Co., 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Dear  Mr.  Robinson:  Assistant  Director  Bishop  has  advised  me  of  your  very 
kind  offer  of  cooperation  in  regard  to  my  forthcoming  trip  to  your  city  and  you 
may  be  sure  I  deeply  appreciate  your  gracious  hospitalitJ^ 

Thank  you  for  oflfering  to  meet  me  at  the  airport,  but  this  will  be  unnecessary 
since  I  previously  made  arrangements  for  transportation  from  there  to  the  Cit.v 
Club  of  Cleveland.  Mr.  Bishop  or  a  representative  from  our  local  office  in  Cleveland 
will  be  in  contact  with  you  prior  to  my  speech  concerning  any  additional  details 
relative  to  my  visit. 

With  best  wishes  and  warm  respect, 
Sincerely  yours, 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III,  Acting  Director. 


106 

July  13,  1972. 
Alan  Davis, 

Executive  Director,  The  City  Club, 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Dear  Mr.  Davis:  I  received  j'oiir  letter  of  July  7th  and  am  certainly  looking 
forward  to  being  with  you  at  your  Forum  on  August  11. 

In  regard  to  your  request,  I  am  enclosing  a  copj-  of  my  biographical  sketch  and 
my  photograph  which  you  may  use  as  indicated  in  your  letter.  A  representative 
from  my  office  will  be  in  contact  with  you  concerning  the  topic  of  mj-  address. 
With  best  wishes  and  warm  respect, 
Sincerely  yours, 

L .  Patrick  Gray  III,  Acting  Director. 


September  4,  1969. 
Frederick  A.  Vierow, 
Executive  Secretary,  The  City  Club, 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Dear  Mr.  Vierow:  On  September  2nd  I  received  your  letter  inviting  me  to 
address  your  Club's  Forum  in  Cleveland  on  one  of  the  dates  indicated  in  January 
or  February,  1970. 

While  I  appreciate  the  kind  invitation,  the  pressure  of  my  official  schedule, 
coupled  with  the  numerous  matters  which  arise  daily  demanding  my  immediate 
attention,  precludes  my  accepting  additional  commitments.  However,  one  of  my 
assistants  would  be  pleased  to  make  this  appearance  and  if  this  arrangement  is 
satisfactory  with  you,  please  advise  me  and  I  will  be  happy  to  designate  someone. 
Sincerely  yours, 

J.  Edgar  Hoover. 

Note:  Bufiles  disclose  on  8-20-68  Vierow  invited  Director  to  address  this 
Forum  on  September  20th  or  27th,  1968.  By  outgoing  8-27-68,  invitation  w-as 
declined.  The  Director  has  received  several  invitations  in  past  to  speak  before 
The  City  Club  which  have  been  declined.  This  Forum  and  group  appears  to  be  a 
good  one  and  as  indicated,  will  have  rather  extensive  radio  coverage.  It  is  definitely 
felt  the  Bureau  would  benefit  by  aflfording  a  sjjeaker  and  would  offer  an  e.xcellent 
opportunity  to  explain  first  hand  our  jurisdiction  and  responsibilities.  Assistant 
Director  Bishop  has  indicated  he  could  handle  this  appearance  on  any  of  the 
dates  in  February,  1970. 

Senator  Byrd.  Veiy  well. 

Reference  has  also  been  made  to  your  speech  in  Butte,  Mont.  It 
may  be  a  little  repetitious,  but  I  was  not  able  to  be  here  throughout 
the  entire  hearing,  and  I  felt,  Mr.  Gray,  that — and  you  supplied  me 
with  a  copy  of  this  statement 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  said  you  would  do  this  the  other  day  when  we 
\dsited  with  you,  along  with  your  other  speeches. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  find  that  this  one  in  particular,  however,  sounded 
like  a  political  speech  and  not  so  much  like  a  law-and-order  speech. 
It  contained  a  good  many  statements'  with  which  I  could  agree,  and 
I  find  no  fault  with  the  statements  that  were  made  therein  per  se. 
You  stated,  for  example: 

The  time  has  come  to  end  this  strident  demagoguery  and  look  at  the  facts  about 
America. 

Let  me  ask  you,  what  other  nation  in  historj^  has  even  come  close  to  the  level 
of  assistance  that  the  United  States  has  given  to  enhance  the  economic  well-being 
and  security  of  its  neighbors  around  the  world? 

Since  World  War  II  the  taxpayers  of  this  country  have  provided  approximately 
$130  billion  in  loans  and  outright  grants  to  other  nations.  This  has  gone  not  just 
for  our  strongest  and  closest  allies,  but  most  especially   to  weak  nations  most 


107 

in  need  of  it.  We  have  given  this  aid  hterally  until  it  hurt — hurt  our  balance  of 
payments  and  our  trade  position  with  other  countries. 

IBut  the  critics  who  claim  this  is  a  selfish  nation  do  not  talk  about  that. 

Another  excerpt: 

What  other  nation  can  and  does  channel  resources  so  generously  through 
government  programs  to  meet  human  needs?  I  refer  to  programs  providing  security 
for  the  aged,  help  for  disadvantaged  children,  support  for  the  unemployed,  and 
other  basic  requirements  for  human  life  and  dignity.  This  is  done  not  just  at  one 
level  of  government,  but  at  the  local,  Federal,  and  State  levels.  To  those  who 
claim  that  our  national  priorities  are  distorted  away  from  the  individual — 

And  there  were  a  lot  of  Democrats  claiming  that  last  year — 

I  would  point  out  the  Federal  outlays  for  supporting  and  developing  human 
resources  such  as  those  I  have  described  continue  to  increase  year  after  year,  and 
that  in  the  current  Fiscal  Year  4.5  percent  of  the  Federal  budget  is  for  human 
resources  and  onlj-  32  percent  for  national  defense. 

But  the  calamity  howlers  here  who  say  the  little  man  is  forgotten  do  not  talk 
about  that. 

Another  excerpt  deals  with  the  amount  of  moneys  that  are  being 
provided  by  all  levels  of  government  for  public,  elementary,  and  sec- 
ondary schools.  And  then  the  statement  follows: 

But  those  who  charge  that  this  is  a  society  of  special  privilege  do  not  talk  about 
all  of  that. 

Then  at  the  end,  relatively  close  to  the  end,  this  quote: 

Your  government  is  doing  everything  possible  to  fight  drug  abuse,  which 
President  Nixon  has  labeled  America's  public  enemy  number  1 . 

Well,  I  could  subscribe  to  most  of  that.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  made 
some  political  speeches  along  the  same  line.  My  problem  comes, 
though,  in  reconciling  this  kind  of  sj^eech  made  by  the  Acting  Direc- 
tor of  the  most  effective  law  enforcement  agency  in  the  world,  hav- 
ing jurisdiction  of  the  most  comprehensive  and  most  effective  intel- 
ligence gathering  network  in  the  world,  this  kind  of  statement  made 
in  the  course  of  a  campaign  dated  Se])tember  7,  1972,  by  such  an 
officer.  I  think  it  ^^  ould  have  to  be  considered  political  by  almost  any 
objective  reader  of  it  and  certainly  by  myself — someone  who  agrees 
with  most  of  what  is  being  said  and  who  has  stated  the  same  thing  in 
many  of  my  i)olitical  s])eeches.  But  I  am  a  politician,  and  I  have  to 
run  for  office.  I  have  to  be  elected  and  reelected.  The  Acting  Director 
of  the  FBI  is  not  a  pohtician.  It  seems  to  me  he  should  avoid  the 
appearance  of  pohtics.  Whatever  else  could  be  said  about  Mr.  Hoover, 
it  could  not  be  said  that  his  agency  \n  as  politically  oriented  or  that 
he  made  political  speeches  during  a  campaign. 

I  understand  that  a^ou  take  the  ^-iewpoint  that  this  was  not  a 
political  si)eech.  You  are  entitled  to  your  opinion  of  that,  but  I  would 
just  have  to  also  be  entitled  to  mine. 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  Byrd,  may  I  ask  were  you  reading  from  the 
Butte,  Mont.,  speech? 

Senator  Byrd.  Yes,  I  thought  I  was.  Yes,  Butte,  Mont.,  Sej^ember 
7,  1972.  And  if  this  has  not  been  placed  in  the  record,  I  would  like  for 
it  to  be  included  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  admitted. 


108 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  B.C.,  September  7,  1972. 

"A  Nation  That  Cares" — An  Address  by  the  Honorable  L.  Patrick  Gray 
III,  Acting  Director,  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation 

As  a  fellow  Rotarian,  I  welcome  this  opportunity  to  be  your  guest  this  evening' 

We  in  the  FBI  deeply  appreciate  the  splendid  cooperation  which  you,  as 
Rotarians  and  citizens  of  this  great  city  and  State,  have  given  us  over  the  years. 

This  evening  I  want  to  talk  about  A  Nation  That  Cares,  a  Nation  which  is 
concerned  about  its  citizens,  their  welfare,  their  happiness,  their  dignity  as  human 
beings. 

In  our  20th  century  world  these  are  among  the  salient  questions  facing  mankind: 
What  kind  of  society  do  we  want? 
What  kind  of  country  is  America  going  to  become? 
Does  our  Government  care  about  our  people?  Does  it  listen? 
Is  it  a  sensitive  society,  wanting  to  make  life  more  significant  and  meaning- 
ful for  every  man,  woman,  and  child? 

These  are  questions  which  strike  to  the  very  heart  of  our  American  way  of  life. 

They  are  questions  about  which  we  must  take  a  stand  if  we  are  to  face  the  future 
with  confidence  and  courage. 

I  believe  that  Americans  know  what  it  means  to  care. 

We  care  enough  to  do  our  ver}^  best. 

We  care  deeply  about  our  community,  our  fellow  man,  our  Nation. 

We  realize  that  unless  people  care — about  themselves,  about  others,  about  their 
values  and  traditions — our  country  will  die. 

This  is  whj^  America  is  today  a  great  and  respected  Nation. 

This  is  why  human  dignity  and  equality  have  achieved  unparalleled  heights 
under  our  democratic  system  of  government. 

How  important  the  whole  concept  of  service  is  to  the  survival  of  civilization  is 
pointed  out — very  succinctly — in  these  words  by  a  prominent  educator: 

"I  do  not  believe,"  says  this  educator,  "the  greatest  threat  to  our  future  is  from 
bombs  or  guided  missiles.  I  don't  think  our  civilization  will  die  that  way.  I  think 
it  will  die  when  we  no  longer  care." 

Unfortunately,  there  are  today  a  small  minority  of  Americans— not  many  but 
a  few — who  bitterly  and  falsely  denounce  our  country  as  cruel,  sick,  callous,  and 
repressive. 

They  want  to  create  the  impression  that  our  Government  is  an  ogre,  a  monster 
which  simply  doesn't  care. 

Another  prominent  educator  has  publich^  denounced  our  national  leaders  as 
not  giving — in  his  words — "any  clear  sign  of  compassion  or  concern  for  the  poor, 
the  weak,  the  sick,  the  unemployed,  the  helpless.  .  .  ." 

Another  speaks  of  a  "selfish  and  oblivious  ruling  Establishment." 

An  author  asks,  "Is  America  Falling  Apart?"  and  then  categorically  states, 
"The  American  Constitution  is  out  of  date." 

The  law  enforcement  profession  finds  itself  constantly  attacked  by  extremists. 
We  are  called  "pigs."  We  are  accused  of  repressing  the  rights  of  citizens.  Every 
opportunity  is  seized  to  portray  our  police,  our  courts,  our  judicial  system  as  cold, 
insensitive,  unfair,  and  bigoted. 

This  is  extremist  rhetoric.  This  is  inflammable  rhetoric  that  does  nothing  to 
enlighten  or  to  contribute  to  our  society. 

It  is  not  based  on  facts. 

It  deals  in  overkill,  emotion,  and  flamboyance. 

It  seeks  to  set  group  against  group,  citizen  against  citizen. 

The  objective  of  extremist  rhetoric  is  to  create  the  totally  false  impression  that 
our  political  processes — local,  state,  and  Federal — are  insensitive  and  cruel,  not 
responsive  to  the  needs  of  the  day. 

These  detractors  aim  not  at  reform  of  our  institutions,  but  at  their  destruction. 

In  my  opinion  the  vast  majority  of  Americans  are  becoming  tired  of  this  quack- 
ing chorus  of  pessimism,  cynicism,  and  lack  of  faith. 

The  time  has  come  to  end  this  strident  demagoguerj^  and  look  at  the  facts  about 
America. 

Let  me  ask  j'ou,  what  other  nation  in  history  has  even  come  close  to  the  level  of 
assistance  that  the  United  States  has  given  to  enhance  the  economic  well-being 
and  security  of  its  neighbors  around  the  world? 


109 

Since  World  War  II  the  taxpayers  of  this  countrj^  have  provided  approximately 
$130  billion  in  loans  and  outright  grants  to  other  nations.  This  has  gone  not  just 
to  our  strongest  and  closest  allies,  but  most  especially  to  weaker  nations  most  in 
need  of  it.  We  have  given  this  aid  hterally  until  it  hurt — hurt  our  balance  of 
payments  and  our  trade  position  with  other  countries. 

But  the  critics  who  claim  this  is  a  selfish  Nation  do  not  talk  much  about  that. 

Again,  what  other  country  has  found  a  means  to  send  people  of  ability  and 
dedication  to  help  emerging  nations  around  the  world  in  their  efforts  to  elevate 
their  way  of  life,  without  asking  anything  whatsoever  in  return? 

The  critics  who  say  we  are  a  crass  and  ungenerous  people  do  not  talk  much 
about  that. 

What  other  people  supports  anywhere  near  the  variety  of  charitable  causes 
and  contributes  anywhere  near  the  proportion  of  its  resources  for  such  causes? 
I  refer  to  approximately  $20  billion  per  year  in  private  contributions  to  health, 
welfare,  educational,  and  religious  institutions.  And  this  does  not  include  the 
millions  of  man-hours  and  woman-hours  contributed  in  the  form  of  personal 
skills  and  service  to  these  causes  by  devoted  individuals. 

But  the  doomsayers  who  call  ours  a  decadent  societj'  do  not  talk  much  about 
that. 

What  other  nation  can  and  does  channel  resources  so  generously  through 
government  programs  to  meet  human  needs?  I  refer  to  programs  providing  security 
for  the  aged,  help  for  disadvantaged  children,  support  for  the  unemployed,  and 
other  basic  requirements  for  human  life  and  dignity.  This  is  done  not  just  at  one 
level  of  government,  but  at  the  local,  Federal,  and  State  levels.  To  those  who 
claim  that  our  national  priorities  are  distorted  away  from  the  individual,  I  would 
point  out  that  the  Federal  outlays  for  supporting  and  developing  human  resources 
such  as  those  I  have  described  continue  to  increase  year  after  year,  and  that  in 
the  current  Fiscal  Year  45  percent  of  the  Federal  Budget  is  for  human  resources 
and  only  32  percent  for  national  defense. 

But  the  calamity-howlers  who  say  that  the  little  man  is  forgotten  do  not 
talk  about  it. 

America  is  NOT  a  selfish,  unconcerned  society  that  does  not  care. 

Perhaps  no  society  in  all  of  history  has  been  more  interested  in  the  personal 
well-being  of  its  citizens,  in  human  concerns,  in  giving  aid  to  the  unfortunate 
both  within  and  beyond  its  boundaries. 

I  like  the  quotation  attributed  to  Lowell  Thomas,  the  famous  radio  com- 
mentator and  world  traveler:  "He  who  allows  a  day  to  pass  without  practicing 
generosity  .  .  .,"  he  said,  "is  like  a  blacksmith's  bellows — he  breathes  but  does 
not  live." 

This  is  the  spirit  of  A  NATION  THAT  CARES. 

In  our  democratic  society,  however,  the  concept  of  service  takes  on  a  dimension 
beyond  material  assistance. 

Its  greater  gift  is  to  provide  a  cUmate  of  freedom  in  which  every  individual 
may  pursue  his  own  hopes,  dreams  and  aspirations,  and  may  work  out  his  own 
destiny  as  a  human  being. 

This  means  a  commitment  to  equal  treatment,  equal  justice,  and  equal 
opportunity  for  every  citizen  of  these  United  States. 

What  other  nation  has  devoted  as  large  a  share  of  its  energies  and  resources 
to  assuring  an  education  for  every  American  until  he  or  she  reaches  adulthood? 
I  refer  not  only  to  the  some  $40  billion  provided  by  all  levels  of  government  for 
public  elementary  and  secondary  schools.  I  am  also  speaking  of  the  vast  and 
growing  public  funds  for  higher  education  and  the  objective,  already  reached  in 
some  states,  of  providing  a  higher  education  to  every  young  person  who  wants  it. 
And  I  am  referring  to  the  huge  individual  and  corporate  contribution  to  private 
education  at  all  levels  and  to  free  public  libraries  throughout  the  country. 

But  those  who  charge  that  this  is  a  society  of  special  privilege  do  not  talk  about 
all  of  that. 

What  other  country  has  made  such  a  determined  effort  to  combat  discrimina- 
tion and  assure  equal  opportunity  for  all  persons  regardless  of  race,  color,  or 
religion?  This  crusade  is  succeeding  because  Americans  and  their  elected  officials 
do  care  about  the  rights  of  others.  At  the  Federal  level,  the  resouces  and  the 
successes  in  this  field  continue  to  rise,  and  today  there  is  more  legal  action 
against  alleged  civil  rights  violators  than  ever  before. 

But  those  who  claim  that  Americans  are  full  of  hatred  and  discrimination  do 
not  talk  about  all  that. 


91-331 — 73- 


no 

FinaUy,  the  gift  of  individual  freedom  and  equal  opportunity  that  we  enjoy 
derives  primarily  from  the  free  government  that  we  have  maintained  for  two 
centuries.  By  that  T  mean  a  government  in  which  the  individual  is  protected  in 
his  freedoms  and  his  personal  goals  by  laws  that  he  or  his  representative  helped  to 
make.  Contrarj^  to  tlae  opinion  of  some,  law  Is  not  the  enemy  of  freedom.  Law 
guarantees  freedom  against  invasion  l:-y  others. 

We  in  the  FBI  and  in  the  law  enf(H-cement  agencies  of  our  country  are  proud 
of  the  part  we  are  playing  to  make  more  secure  .your  rights,  your  lives,  and  your 
property. 

Today  there  is  every  indication  that  the  upward  thrust  of  crime  is  being  con- 
siderably slowed. 

During  the  first  quarter  of  1972,  crime  registered  its  smallest  increase — one 
percent — in  11  years.  This  gives  us  hope  that  very  shortly  crime  will  reflect  an 
absolute  decline — and  that  this  tide  of  lawlessness  which  for  so  long  has  beset 
our  people  will  recede. 

Eighty  of  our  largest  cities  reported  actual  decreases  in  crime  for  this  three- 
month  period — compared  with  22  cities  in  1970,  and  59  in  1971. 

In  Fiscal  Year  1972,  the  FBI's  drive  against  organized  crime  hit  an  all-time 
high  with  a  continuing  series  of  major  gambling  raids,  and  the  conviction  of  more 
than  750  racket  figures,  including  some  of  the  country's  ranking  syndicate  leaders. 

Much  hard  work  remains  ahead.  Organized  crime  is  a  tenacious  and  costly 
social  malady.  But  effective  law  enforcement,  utilizing  the  latest  techniques  of 
crime  detection,  is  making  more  difficult  the  position  of  the  hoodlum  mobs. 

The  tide  is  also  turning  in  favor  of  the  American  people  in  the  area  of  narcotics. 

In  1971,  Federal  Agents  removed  five  times  as  much  heroin  and  equivalent 
opium  derivatives  from  the  world  market  as  in  the  year  1968. 

The  United  States  for  the  first  time  has  won  the  genuine  cooperation  of  foreign 
countries  which  have  been  sources  of  narcotics,  and  they  are  clamping  down  on 
the  traffic. 

Your  Government  is  doing  everything  possible  to  fight  drug  abuse,  which 
President  Nixon  has  labeled,  "America's  public  enemy  number  1." 

The  role  of  the  law  enforcement  profession  in  helping  create  A  NATION 
THAT  CARES  is  absolutely  vital. 

My  command  of  the  English  language  does  not  enable  me  to  express  my  indig- 
nation when  I  hear  police  officers  called  "pigs." 

The  vast  majority  of  men  and  women  in  our  profession  are  honorable  people 
conscientiously  devoting  their  lives  to  a  vital  public  service. 

They  are  often  underpaid  and  overworked. 

They  daily  risk  their  lives  that  you — and  millions  of  other  Americans-^might 
enjoy  the  liberties  of  this  land. 

To  equate  the  law  enforcement  profession  with  repression,  to  sanctimoniously 
accuse  the  FBI  and  local  police  and  our  whole  judicial  system  f)f  eroding  the 
liberties  of  the  people,  is  to  completely  misunderstand  the  positive  role  they  play 
in  our  society. 

As  Acting  Director  of  the  FBI,  in  meeting  police  officers  of  all  ranks,  I  have 
been  deeply  impressed  by  their  honesty,  their  integrity,  and  especially  their  com- 
passion as  human  beings. 

I  always  think  of  the  picture  of  the  police  officer  bending  over  a  child  who 
has  been  badly  injured,  blowing  the  breath  of  life  from  his  own  body  into  the 
mouth  of  that  .voungster. 

Ours  is  a  profession  of  service.  Its  members  are  in  it  because  thej^  care  about 
their  city,  their  state,  their  Nation,  and  they  care  about  the  people  in  them.  They 
give  from  their  own  strength,  knowledge,  and  dedication  so  that  others  might 
live  in  safety  and  freedom. 

That  is  why  our  Rotarian  motto — SERVICE — reflects  the  spirit  of  America 
and  why  it  has  so  much  to  say  to  Americans. 

"You  must  give  some  time  to  your  fellow  man,"  said  Albert  Schweitzer,  the 
famous  author,  philosopher,  and  physician.  "Even  if  it's  a  little  thing,  do  some- 
thing for  those  who  have  need  of  a  man's  help,  something  for  which  you  get  n 
pay  but  the  privilege  of  doing  it." 

Today,  more  than  ever,  this  moral  imperative  influences  the  American  people. 
It  characterizes  our  Nation  far  more  than  the  passing  shortcomings  that  are 
magnified  by  the  professional  critics.  It  is  what  continues  to  make  the  United 
States  not  only  a  Nation  but  a  state  of  mind — a  state  of  mind  that  cares  about 
others  and  still  lights  the  lamp  of  hojje  in  a  troubled  wt)rld. 


Ill 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  I  not  reading  from  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  1  do  not  know.  1  cannot  find  it  in  the  Butte,  Mont., 
speech  unless  1  have  niy  cover  page  of  the  speech  mixed  up  or  unless  1 
gave  you  a  different  cover  page.  We  will  check  it  later. 

Senator  Byrd.  All  right. 

Now,  as  to  the  request  from  the  Wliite  House  for  election  year 
political  advice  on  criminal  justice  issues,  this  was  forwarded  to  the 
FBI  field  offices,  as  1  understand. 

Mr.  Gray.  Is  that  the  Cleveland  City  Club  speech? 

Senator  Byrd.  No. 

Mr.  Gray.  You  are  talking  about  the  criminal  justice  items  that 
came  in  a  memorandum  from  Geoft"  Shepard? 

Senator  Byrd.  This  request  came  from  Mr.  Sheppard.  And  it 
requested  mformation  to  be  used  m  15  specified  States.  It  was  a 
memorandum  entitled  "Information  for  Campaign  Trips,"  and  I 
believe  you  indicated  earlier  that  this  matter  was  handled  by  your 
executive  assistant,  Mr.  Kinley. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not  say  it  was  handled  by  him.  It  was  a  piece  of 
paper  when  it  came  to  my  office,  the  Office  of  Acting  Director,  came 
through  the  routing  system,  came  to  Mr.  Kinley's  clesk.  Mr.  Kinley 
marked  it  for  the  Assistant  Director  in  charge  of  the  Crime 
Research  Division  and  it  was  handled  that  way. 

Senator  Byrd.  WTiere  were  you  at  the  time? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  had  embarked  on  a  field  office  visit  to  Anchorage, 
Alaska,  to  Seattle,  Wash.,  to  Portland,  Greg.,  to  do  a  speech  in 
Spokane  at  the  Washington  State  Bar  Association  and  then  into  Butte, 
Mont.,  and  I  was  in  Butte,  Mont.,  when  this  request- — either  in  Butte, 
Mont.,  or  in  the  air — when  this  request  was  received  at  mj'  office  on 
Friday. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  indicated,  I  believe  earlier,  that  you  hit  the 
overhead,  was  it,  or  the  ceiling  or  words  to  that  effect? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  By'^rd.  What  action  did  you  take? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  part  of  the  action  that  I  took  was  to  abolish  the 
Crime  Research  Division  and  transfer  its  functions  throughout  the 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  including  the  transfer  of  press  rela- 
tions and  the  congressional  service  unit  to  m}^  office.  That  was  not 
the  only  reason  that  I  abolished  the  Crime  Research  Division.  There 
were  other  reasons. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  was  just  going  to  ask,  what  would  press  relations  or 
congressional  relations  have  to  do  with  a  decision  in  regard  to  a  Wliite 
House  request  to  get  information  from  various  field  offices? 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  that  was  the  Division  within  the  Federal  Bureau 
of  Investigation  that  normally  handled  such  requests. 

Senator  Byrd.  What  action  was  taken  against  any  persons  in  con- 
nection therewith? 

Mr.  Gray.  No  punitive  action  was  taken  against  any  persons, 
Senator. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  Mr.  Thomas  E.  Bishop  retired  or  reassigned? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  he  was  offered  a  position  as  SAC,  special  agent  in 
charge  of  a  field  office. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  this  the  result  of  the  memorandum  that  came 
from  the  White  House? 


112 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  because  I  was  going  to  abolish  the  Crime  Research 
Division  anyhow  as  a  result  of  a  management  survey.  However,  rather 
than  giving  him  nothing,  I  offered  him  a  position.  He  knew  he  could 
have  the  job  as  special  agent  in  charge  of  a  field  office. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  j^ou  hit  the  ceilmg,  Mr.  GT&y,  did  you  rebuke 
Mr.  Kinley  or  Mr.  Felt? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  I  did. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  there  any  other  such  requests  that  have  not 
yet  been  publicly  exposed  ? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  know  of  none.  There  may  be  some  hidden  in  the  wood- 
work or  Claymore  Mines.  I  have  found  this  to  be  the  case  from  time 
to  time,  Senator,  in  trying  to  dig  out  man}^  things,  Senator,  but  I 
know  of  none  at  the  moment. 

Senator  Byrd.  Would  you  not  know  of  them  if  they  had  been  made, 
such  requests? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  thought  you  were  talking  of  some  that  were  lying 
around  there.  No,  I  know  of  none.  I  thought  you  were  talking  about 
some  action  that  was  going  to  occur  in  the  future. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  was  wondering  whether  any  similar  requests  from 
the  White  House  for  information  to  be  used  in  the  campaign  had  been 
made  that  had  not  been  exposed. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  Senator. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  3^ou  travel  by  commercial  planes  during  the 
campaign? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir ;  I  traveled  b}^  U.S.  Air  Force  aircraft.  I  was  not 
traveling  during  the  campaign.  I  was  traveling  on  my  own  as  Acting 
Director  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation.  As  I  explained 
earlier.  Senator  Byrd,  this  was  a  part  of  the  way  in  which  I  chose  to 
bring  the  FBI's  message  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  I 
have  felt,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  but  it  is  my  opinion,  that  the 
dedicated  men  and  women  of  the  FBI  were  maligned  too  much  and 
it  was  time  to  open  the  window  and — — ■ 

Senator  Byrd.  Travel  primarily  b}^  commercial  plane? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  U.S.  Air  Force  aircraft.  I  did  make  one  trip  to  San 
Diego  on  United  Airlines. 

Senator  Byrd.  Why  did  you  travel  by  U.S.  Air  Force? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  figure  I  have  too  much  information  in  my  head  and  it 
could  be  extracted  very  easily  by  anyone  who  might  hijack  an  air- 
craft. To  have  the  Acting  Director  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investiga- 
tion in  your  hands  and  subject  to  the  kind  of  sophisticated  treatment 
today  that  can  be  given  to  extract  information  was  rather  dangerous. 

Senator  Byrd.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  the  Attorney  General 
travels  by  commercial  plane? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  does  not. 

Senator  Byrd.  He  does  not  travel  by  commercial  plane? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  sorry,  sir.  He  does.  I  am  sorry. 

Senator  Byrd.  Does  the  Air  Force  bill  the  FBI  for  the  use  of  its 
jets? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  it  does  bill  us  and  we  do  pay  for  it.  I  might  add, 
Senator,  in  response  to  your  earher  question,  that  the  Attorney  General 
does  not  have  the  information  in  his  head  securitywise  in  detail  and 
in  depth  that  I  have. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  indicated  earlier  that  the  Watergate  break-in 
occurred  on  June  17.  Did  the  FBI  tell  Mr.  Ehrlichman  on  that  day 
that  Mr.  Hunt  was  involved? 


113 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  FBI  reported  on  that  day  to 
Mr.  EhrHchman  that  Mr.  Hunt  was  involved.  I  will  have  to  furnish 
that  information  for  the  record.  I  know  that  probably  such  information 
was  furnished  but  as  to  the  exact  time  I  will  have  to  determine  that, 
Senator. 

(Mr.  Graj^  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record) : 

Mr.  Gray.  Upon  checking  the  record,  I  find  that  the  FBI  did  not  inform 
Mr.  EhrUchman  that  Mr.  Hunt  was  involved.  However,  late  in  the  afternoon  of 
June  17,  1972,  Mr.  Alexander  P.  Butterfield,  Deputy  Assistant  to  the  President, 
was  contacted  b.y  the  Washington  Field  Office  to  ascertain  what  connection  Mr. 
Hunt  had  with  the  White  House. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  indicated  that  you  learned  of  the  Watergate 
incident  in  California  on  June  17  by  your  field  office;  do  you  know 
who  contacted  the  field  office  from  the  Washington  office? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know  the  individual.  I  know  that  between 
9:30  and  10  a.m.,  Pacific  daylight  time,  which  was  12:.30  p.m.,  1  p.m., 
Washington  time,  SAC  Kunkel  of  the  Washington  field  office,  on 
instructions  from  Mr.  Felt,  FBI  headquarters,  called  the  Los  Angeles 
field  office  and  furnished  them  information  concerning  the  Watergate 
incident  for  immediate  relay  to  me. 

Senator  Byrd.  Who  in  the  field  office  contacted  you? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  was  not  contacted  in  the  field  office  because  I  was  in 
the  automobile  on  the  way  to  Santa  Ana,  Calif.,  to  make 

Senator  Byrd.  W^ere  you  contacted  b}^  Mr.  Kunkel? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  was  not.  The  information  was  passed  to  me 
by  the  resident  agent  at  Santa  Ana,  Calif.,  where  I  was  to  deliver 
the  commencement  address  at  the  law  school  at  Pepperdine  Univer- 
sity. He  was  instructed  to  contact  me  and  to  alert  me  as  to  the  Water- 
gate incident. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  you  know  of  Mr.  Hunt's  involvement  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  did  not.  All  I  knew  at  that  time  was  that  someone 
was  involved  and  we  did  not  know  the  names. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  did  you  know  of  Mr.  McCord's  involvement? 

Mr.  Gray.  3:45  p.m.,  Pacific  daA^light  time,  I  was  advised  that  he 
had  been  identified  as  an  ex-FBI  agent  and  security  officer  of  the 
Committee  To  Reelect  the  President. 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Ehrlichman  was  reported  to  have  been  looking 
for  Mr.  Hunt  on  the  17th.  Do  you  know  why? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Senator  Byrd.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  FBI  entered  the  case 
on  the  17th,  would  it  not  be  proper  to  assume  that  the  FBI  told 
Mr.  Ehrlichman  that  Mr.  Hunt  was  involved? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  it  would  not  be  proper  to  assume  that,  Senator, 
because  I  gave  instruction  very  earh'  when  I  first  talked  with  Mr.  Felt, 
and  I  must  make  sure  when  that  was.  The  instructions  I  gave  to 
Mr.  Felt  were  to  hold  this  very,  very,  verA'  closely,  and  that  I 
think  was  probably  late  in  the  afternoon  on  the  17th  or  early  on  the 
18th.  But  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  FBI  would  have  made 
any  notification  to  anj^body  without  notif3dng  me  first.  They  just  do 
not  operate  that  way. 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Ehrlichman  was  reported  to  have  said,  "We  get 
a  routine  notification."  Does  that  mean  they  would  get  a  routine 
notification  from  the  FBI  if  a  White  House  staffer  was  in  trouble? 


114 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  am  going  to  have  to  look  into  that  for  you.  I 
cannot  answer  that  question  under  oath.  I  am  going  to  have  to  look 
into  that.  I  just  do  not  know  that  information  that  specifically.  But 
I  will  find  out  and  I  will  furnish  it  for  the  record. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

I  find,  Senator  Byrd,  upon  checking  the  record,  that  when  the  FBI  receives  an 
allegation  of  a  criminal  nature  against  an  employee  in  the  Executive  Branch,  as 
a  matter  of  routine,  a  senior  oflScial  of  that  agency  is  advised.  This  includes  the 
White  House. 

Senator  Byrd.  Can  you  inform  the  committee  as  to  who  first  con- 
tacted the  White  House  on  the  17th? 

Mr.  Gray.  On  the  17th,  assuming — I  will  inform  you,  Senator 
Byrd,  and  the  members  of  the  committee,  who  first  contacted  the 
White  House  and  when  and  what  they  told  them. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  who  was  contacted  at  the  White  House. 

Mr.  Gray.  Right;  I  will  inform  the  committee. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  followmg  document  for  the 
record :) 

Senator  Byrd,  upon  checking  the  record,  I  find  that  Supervisor  John  Ruhl  of 
the  Washington  Field  Office  telephonically  contacted  Mr.  Alexander  P.  Butter- 
field,  Deputy  Assistant  to  the  President,  between  6:00  and  7:00  pm,  June  17, 
1972,  to  determine  Mr.  Hunt's  affiliation  with  the  White  House  and  to  inform 
the  White  House  that  Mr.  Hunt  maj'  be  involved  in  this  matter  which  was  being 
investigated  by  the  FBI.  This  was  the  first  contact  by  the  FBI  with  the  White 
House  concerning  this  matter. 

Senator  Byrd.  Why  did  the  FBI  not  look  for  Mr.  Hunt  until  the 
19th? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  we  interviewed  Mr.  Hunt  on  the  evening  of  the 
17th,  if  my  recollection  is  correct,  and  I  will  check  that  in  the  summary 
to  make  sure  and  if  I  am  in  error  I  will  correct  it.  I  think  I  am  correct 
in  stating  that  we  interviewed  him  on  the  17th. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Upon  checking  the  record  I  find  that  at  approximately  5:30  p.m.,  June  17, 
1972,  the  Washington  Field  Office  telephonically  contacted  Mr.  Hunt  to  request 
an  interview  with  him.  He  agreed  and  shortly  thereafter  was  contacted  at  his 
home  by  two  Special  Agents. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  interviewed 

Mr.  Gray.  That  evening. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  interviewed  Mr.  Hunt  on  that  evening? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  he  was  not  doing  very  much  talking. 

Senator  Byrd,  Mr.  Ehrlichman  was  having  a  little  trouble  finding 
him. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know  that  Senator.  I  do  not  know  that  Mr. 
Ehrlichman  was  looking  for  him. 

Senator  Byrd.  According  to  the  press  reports,  I  believe.  Wlio 
ordered  the  FBI  into  the  case? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  think  anybod}^  ordered  the  FBI  into  the  case. 
When  I  was  fu"st  advised  of  it  m}'  first  question  was,  Do  we  have  juris- 
diction? Actually,  our  first  reports  w^ere  that  it  was  a  burglary.  Then 
we  thought  a  bombing  incident  was  involved  because  one  of  the  instru- 
ments picked  up  there,  a  smoke  detector,  did  have  a  couple  of,  I  think 
they  were,  batteries  in  it  and  it  was  thought  that  this  was  a  bomb.  In 


115 

fact,  from  the  first  reports  our  SAC  in  Washington  field  ofBce  desig- 
nated a  burglar}^  specialist  to  be  tlie  case  agent.  Then  as  soon  as  we 
saw  the  de^dces  we  knew  we  were  involved  with  an  IOC,  a  violation 
of  the  intercepted  communications  statute  so  we  went  right  into  it. 
Otherwise  we  would  have  deferred  to  the  metropolitan  police  depart- 
ment on  either  the  burglary  or  the  bomb,  but  it  was  later  on,  about 
mid-day,  that  the  U.S.  attorney  and  the  Assistant  Attorney  General 
of  the  Criminal  Division  confirmed  that  we  should  have  jurisdiction  of 
this  case. 

Senator  Byrd.  AVere  you  asked  by  the  Wliite  House  to  get  into 
the  case? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  had  no  instructions  from  the  Wliite  House,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  you  got  no  request? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  To  what  extent  were  you  aware  of  the  details  of 
the  Watergate  investigation  as  it  was  progressing? 

Mr.  Gray.  To  what  extent  was  I  aware  of  what,  sir? 

Senator  Byrd.  To  what  extent  were  you  aware  of  the  details  of 
the  Watergate  investigation  as  it  progressed? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  in  my  position  as  Acting  Director,  I  certainly  was 
aware  of  it  because  the  teletypes  would  come  across  my  desk.  I  had 
met  early  in  the  game  with  the  top  people  who  were  involved  in  the 
investigation,  gave  them  the  instructions  to  press  it  aggressively, 
give  it  a  full  court  press,  in  the  language  of  the  FBI,  saw  these  tele- 
types as  they  would  come  across  my  desk,  discuss  the  case  with  them, 
but  as  you  know,  in  the  FBI  when  a'ou  get  hit  with  a  major  spe<ial 
like  this,  the  case  agent  and  the  agents  working  the  case  with  him 
agree  and  confer  and  determine  the  leads  that  are  to  be  sent  out.  Those 
leads  are  reviewed  by  the  field  supervisors  and  by  their  SAC  and  at 
the  same  time  they  are  in  close  touch  with  the  Bureau  supervisor. 
These  leads  are  going  out  and  the  organization  is  really  cranking  up  the 
speed  rather  rapidly  through  the  teletype  circuit.  I  will  be  happy 
to  submit  for  the  record  the  general  instructions  that  went  out  in- 
dicating that  this  was  to  be  an  investigation  aggressively  conducted 
and  pursued,  taken  under  the  wing  of  each  special  agent  in  charge, 
and  as  many  special  agents  utilized  as  necessary  in  order  to  promptly 
and  effectively  investigate  this  case. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record:) 

Senator  Byrd,  I  find  upon  checking  our  records  that  on  June  17,  1972,  when 
this  case  broke.  Special  Agent  in  Charge  Kunkel  was  telephonically  advised  by  the 
extra-duty  supervisor  of  the  General  Investigative  Division,  of  Assistant  Director 
Bates'  instructions  that  Mr.  Kunkel  must  personally  insure  this  case  receives  top 
priority  handUng  bj^  as  manj^  Special  Agents  as  are  necessary.  He  was  instructed 
as  leads  developed  in  other  offices,  similar  telephonic  instructions  were  to  be  given 
to  the  field  and  if  coverage  of  the  leads  turned  up  additional  leads  in  another 
office,  these  instructions  of  FBI  Headquarters  relative  to  the  handling  of  this 
case  were  to  be  passed  on.  The  telephonic  instructions  were  subsequently  confirmed 
in  writing  by  FBI  Headquarters  and  I  am  submitting  the  following  document 
for  the  record  (the  document  is  a  Personal  Attention  airtel  dated  June  20,  1972, 
to  Special  Agents  in  Charge  Washington  Field  Ofhce,  Atlanta,  Alexandria,  Balti- 
more, Boston,  Kansas  Citj%  Houston,  Miami,  New  York  and  Philadelphia).  The 
first  paragraph  of  this  airtel  appears  pertinent  to  j'our  request,  Senator  Byrd, 
and  I  will  quote  it  for  the  record  as  follows: 


116 

"This  will  confirm  instructions  to  appropriate  offices  that  all  logical  investiga- 
tion is  to  receive  immediate  attention  under  the  personal  direction  of  SACs  by 
as  many  SAs  as  are  needed  to  insure  absolute,  thorough,  immediate,  imaginative 
investigation  is  conducted  in  this  case.  All  leads  are  to  be  set  out  by  telephone  or 
teletype  as  appropriate.  Bureau  is  to  be  aware  of  all  leads." 

I  am  also  submitting  for  the  record  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  C.  Bolz  to  Mr. 
Bates  dated  9/12/72,  concerning  instructions  issued  by  FBIHQ  to  the  various 
FBI  field  offices,  relay  of  FBIHQ  instructions  to  other  field  offices,  scope  of  in- 
vestigation and  certain  statistical  data  concerning  Agents  assigned  and  man- 
hours  used  in  the  investigation  of  this  case,  together  wath  enclosures. 

AlRTEL 
PERSONAL    ATTENTION  fi/20/72 

To:  SACs  Washington  Field;  Atlanta,  Alexandria,  Baltimore,  Boston,  Kansas 
Citv,  Houston,  Miami,  New  York,  and  Philadelphia. 

From:  Acting  Director,  FBI  (139-4089). 

James  Walter  McCord,  Jr.;  Bernard  L.  Barker,  et  al.,  Burglary  of  Demo- 
cratic Party  National  Headquarters,  6/17/72,  Interception  of  Communica- 
tions, and  Co:  WFO. 

This  will  confirm  instructions  to  appropriate  offices  that  all  logical  investiga- 
tion is  to  receive  immediate  attention  under  the  personal  direction  of  SACs  by 
as  many  SAs  as  are  needed  to  insure  absolute  thorough,  immediate,  imaginative 
investigation  is  conducted  in  this  case.  All  leads  are  to  be  set  out  by  telephone  or 
teletj'pe  as  ajjpropriate.  Bureau  is  to  be  aware  of  all  leads. 

Philadelphia  and  Miami  are  instructed  to  expend  all  efforts  necessary  to  trace 
the  $100  bills  recovered  from  the  subjects. 

^liami  is  to  continue  developing  complete  background  on  all  subjects  and 
individuals  involved  who  appear  to  have  been  in  the  Washington,  D.C.,  area  for 
purjioses  related  to  captioned  burglary. 

WFO  discuss  with  the  USA  the  possibility  of  obtaining  a  search  warrant  for 
search  of  McCord's  apartment  in  the  Miami  area. 

?.liami  and  WFO  are  to  obtain  all  available  information  concerning  the  bank 
accoimts,  as  well  as  toll  telephone  calls,  of  the  subjects  and  other  individuals  who 
apjiear  to  be  involved  in  this  case  including  Everette  Howard  Hunt,  Jr. 

WFO  is  instructed  to  continue  submission  of  a  daily  teletype  summary  of  the 
highlights  of  investigation. 


To:  Mr.  Bates 

From:  C.  Bolz 

James  Walter  McCord,  Jr.,  Et  Al.; 

Burglary  of  Democratic  Partj^, 

National  Headquarters, 

June  17,  1972, 

Interception  of  Communications. 

The  following  is  furnished  in  partial  response  to  Mr.  Felt's  memorandum  of 
September  11,  1972,  wherein  he  requested  certain  statistical  information  showing 
the  scope  of  this  investigation. 

Instructions  Issued  by  FBIHQ 

On  Saturday,  June  17,  1972,  when  this  case  broke,  SAC,  Washington  Field, 
was  telephonically  advised  by  the  extra-duty  supervisor  of  the  General  Investi- 
gative Division,  of  Assistant  Director  Bates'  instructions  that  SAC  must  per- 
sonall}'  insure  this  case  receives  top  priority  handling  by  as  many  Special  Agents 
as  are' necessary.  As  leads  developed  in  other  offices,  similar  telephonic  instructions 
were  given  to  the  field  offices  involved  and  further  that  if  coverage  of  a  lead 
turned  up  additional  leads  in  another  office,  the  Bureau's  instructions  relative 
to  handling  were  to  be  passed  on.  The  telephonic  instructions  were  subsequently 
confirmed  in  writing  as  sho-ma  below. 

By  Personal  Attention  airtel  dated  June  20,  1972,  to  SACs,  Washington  Field 
Office,  Atlanta,  Alexandria,  Baltimore,  Boston,  Kansas  City,  Houston,  Miami, 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  the  following  general  instructions  were  set  forth 
by  FBIHQ: 


117 

"This  will  confirm  instructions  to  appropriate  offices  that  all  logical  investi- 
gation is  to  receive  immediate  attention  under  the  personal  direction  of  SACs 
by  as  many  SAs  as  are  needed  to  insure  absolute,  thorough,  immediate,  imagi- 
native investigation  is  conducted  in  this  case.  All  leads  are  to  be  set  out  by  tele- 
phone or  teletype  as  appropriate.  Bureau  is  to  be  aware  of  all  leads." 

While  the  general  instructions  did  not  state  that  if  necessary,  manpower  must 
be  diverted  from  other  areas,  it  is  noted  that  Washington  Field  did,  in  fact, 
divert  manpower  to  this  case  from  other  investigative  areas  to  insure  immediate 
handling  of  leads. 

In  addition  to  the  above  general  instructions,  the  June  20,  1972,  airtel  specifi- 
cally instructed  Philadelphia  and  Miami  to  expend  all  efforts  necessary  to  trace 
the  $100  bills  recovered  from  the  subjects.  By  teletype  dated  June  20,  1972, 
FBIHQ  instructed  Washington  Field.  Miami  and  Philadelphia  that  investigation 
to  identify  money  recovered  from  the  subjects  at  the  time  of  arrests  must  be 
pressed  vigoroush^  The  observation  was  made  that  it  is  most  important  that 
every  effort  be  made  to  identif.y  the  eventual  recipient  of  those  funds. 

By  teletype  dated  June  20,  1972,  to  Miami,  New  York,  Newark,  Tampa,  San 
Juan  and  Washington  Field,  it  was  emphasized  that  Bureau  is  conducting  vig- 
orous investigation  to  develop  an  Interception  of  Communications  violation  and 
to  determine  the  reasons  for  this  activity  as  well  as  other  individuals  who  may 
be  involved.  These  offices,  which  handle  practically  all  high-level  informants 
relative  to  Cuban  matters,  were  instructed  to  immediately  contact  sources 
knowledgeable  concerning  Cuban  activities  to  develop  whatever  information 
was  available  concerning  the  subjects,  their  associates  and  possible  motives  for 
the  burglary. 

By  airtel  dated  June  22,  1972,  to  SACs  Washington  Field  Office,  New  Haven, 
Miami,  Kansas  City  and  New  York,  the  importance  of  this  case  was  again  em- 
phasized in  the  following  paragraph: 

"It  is  again  reiterated  that  all  leads  in  this  matter  must  be  given  the  highest 
priority  with  sufficient  personnel  assigned  to  insure  maximum  effort  in  covering 
all  leads." 

Particular  instructions  in  that  airtel  to  New  Haven  were  for  that  office  to 
intensify  and  expedite  efforts  to  develop  full  background  information  concerning 
Baldwin. 

By  teletj^pe  dated  June  23,  1972,  SACs  Washington  Field,  Albany,  Albuquerque, 
Alexandria,  Atlanta.  Baltimore,  Birmingham,  Boston,  Charlotte,  Chicago, 
Cincinnati.  Cleveland,  Dallas,  Denver,  Houston,  Jacksonville,  Kansas  City, 
Los  Angeles,  Miami,  Minneapolis,  Newark,  New  Haven,  New  York  City,  Norfolk, 
Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  Richmond,  San  Antonio,  San  Francisco,  San  Juan, 
Springfield  and  Tampa,  were  instructed,  among  other  things,  the  following: 

"This  case  is  to  receive  highest  priority  investigative  attention." 

Relay  of  FBIHQ  instructions  to  other  field  offices 

As  investigation  in  this  matter  was  requested  of  auxiliary  offices  not  previoush'' 
in  receipt  of  communications,  the  general  FBIHQ  instructions  substantially 
identical  to  the  above  were  set  out  as  sho«ii  in  the  attached  schedule  of  com- 
munications requesting  the  investigation.  In  those  instances  wherein  only  a  portion 
of  the  language  w"as  used  oi'  the  wording  substantially  differed  from  the  original 
general  instructions,  the  specific  language  is  set  out. 

An  analysis  of  the  teletj'pes  and  airtels  discloses  50  of  the  .51  field  offices  which 
conducted  investigation  were  advised  of  the  general  instructions  in  writing.  The 
Buffalo  Office  was  orally  advised  of  the  general  instructions  by  telephone  on  both 
June  23,  1972  and  June  24,  1972,  during  its  efforts  to  locate  and  interview  Kenneth 
Dahlberg,  which  was  the  only  uavestigation  conducted  by  that  office. 

Field  offices  and  legal  attaches  involved  in  the  investigation 

As  of  September  8,  1972,  51  of  our  field  offices  and  four  Legal  Attaches  conducted 
investigation  in  this  case.  The  latter  included  Mexico  Citj^,  Ottawa,  Caracas  and 
Bonn. 

Agents  assigned  and  man-hours  used 

For  the  period  from  inception  of  the  investigation  on  June  17,  1972,  through 
close  of  business  September  8,  1972,  333  Agents  have  been  assigned  to  work  on  this 
case.  For  the  same  period,  14,098  man-hours  have  been  utilized  in  this  investigation. 

With  respect  to  the  scope  of  communications  submitted  in  this  case,  as  of 
September  8,  1972,  there  have  been  130  investigative  reports  totaling  approx- 
imately 3,500  pages  submitted.  These  reports  have  been  disseminated  to  Assistant 
Attorney  General  Henry  Petersen,  Criminal  Division,  and  to  the  U.S.  Attorney, 


118 


Washington,    D.C.   There  have   been   approximatelj-  750  teletvpes   and   airtels 
received  by  FBIHQ  concerning  this  case  as  of  September  8,  1972. 

ACTION:  This  is  for  information.  The  field  has  been  instructed  to  submit  by  close 
of  business  September  12,  1972,  information  as  to  the  number  of  leads  which  have 
been  covered,  the  total  number  of  persons  who  have  been  interviewed  and  the 
total  number  of  persons  who  have  been  reinterviewed.  That  information  will  be 
submitted  by  separate  memorandum  as  soon  as  it  is  received. 

FIELD  RELAY  OF  INSTRUCTIONS 


Date  and  time 


To 


From 


Instructions 


June23, 1972, 10:40  a.m. 


June  23, 1972, 1  p.m. 


June  23,  1972,1:58  p.m. 

June  24,  1972,3:50  a.m.. 
June24, 1972,  9:22  a.m.. 
June  24, 1972,  2:20  p.m.. 
June24, 1972,  8:46  p.m.. 


Bureau  and  SAC's,  Albany,  Alexan- 
dria, Baltimore,  Birmingham, 
Boston,  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  Dallas, 
Denver,  Houston,  Los  Angeles, 
Miami,  Minneapolis,  Newark,  New 
Haven,  New  Yorl<,  Norfoll<, 
Philadelphia,  Richmond,  San 
Antonio,  San  Francisco,  Springfield, 
and  Tampa. 

Bureau  and  SAC's,  Miami,  and 
Norfolk. 


Bureau  and  SAC's,  Buffalo,  and 
Washington  Field. 


Washington 
Field. 


General  instructions. 


do... 


Miami. 


and 


Bureau  and  SAC's,  St.  Louis, 

Washington  Field. 
Bureau  and  SAC's,  San  Juan,  Chicago,  ... 

Louisville,  and  Washington  Field. 
Bureau  and  SAC's,  Washington  Field,      St 

Miami,  and  Kansas  City. 
Bureau  and  Tampa Miami 


.-do... 
..do... 
.  Louis. 


June  27,  1972, 1:10  p.m 

June27,  1972,  4:09p.m 

June28, 1972,  8:38  p.m 

June  30, 1972, 6:32  p.m 

June  30, 1972,  airtelegram.. 


Bureau  and  SAC's  Buffalo,  Detroit,  Washington 

Las  Vegas,  Phoenix,  and  St.  Louis.  Fiald. 


Bureau  and  SAC,  Boston do. 


July  1,1972,4:45  p.m... 
July  5, 1972,  airtelegram. 

July  5, 1972,6:25  p.m... 
July  11,1972,6:05  p.m.. 


July  14,  1=72,3:35  p.m. 
Aug.  2, 1972,  cablegram. 


Bureau  and  SAC's,  Washington 
Field,  Baltimore,  Boston,  Seattle. 

Bureau  and  SAC's,  Chicago,  Detroit, 
Los  Angeies,  Miami,  Milwaukee, 
and  New  York. 

Bureau  and  SAC's,  Albany,  Albuquer- 
que, Alexandria,  Anchorage, 
Atlanta,  Baltimore,  Boston,  Butte, 
Charlotte,  Chicago,  Cincinnati, 
Cleveland,  Columbia,  Denver, 
Detroit,  Houston,  Indianapolis, 
Jackson,  Jacksonville,  Las  Vegas, 
Little  Rock,  Los  Angeles,  Miami, 
Milwaukee,  Newark,  New  Haven, 
New  York,  Norfolk,  Omaha, 
Philadelphia,  Phoenix,  Pittsburgh, 
Portland,  Richmond,  Seattle, 
Salt  Lake  City,  Springfield,  and 
Tampa. 

Bureau  and  SAC's,  Washington  Field, 
and  Denver. 

Bureau  and  SAC's  Baltimore,  Miami, 
Boston,  Norfolk,  New  York, 
Washington  Field. 

Bureau  and  SAC's  San  Diego, 
Washington  Field. 

Bureau  and  SAC's,  Baltimore,  Houston, 
Louisville,  Miami,  and  Oklahoma 
City. 

Bureau  and  SAC,  Memphis 

Legat,  Mexico  City 


Miami. 


Washington 
Field. 

do 


.  "All  logical  leads  indicating 
subjects  have  or  had  con- 
tact in  Washington,  D.C. 
area,  Maryland  and  Virginia 
being  handled  with  tele- 
types to  other  offices." 

.  "All  leads  to  be  handled 
telephonically  followed  by 
teletype." 

.  General  instructions. 

.  General  instructions. 
.  General  instructions. 

.  "Bureau  has  requested  im- 
mediate coverage  on  all 
leads  in  captioned  matter." 
". . .  Bureau  advised  this 
case  is  to  receive  highest 
priority  investigative  at- 
tention." 

.  "Boston  is  requested  to 
handle  this  lead  as  soon 
as  possible." 

.  General  instructions. 

General  instructions. 


General  instructions. 


Detroit 

do 

do 

Washington 
Field. 

do 

Bureau 


General  instructions. 
General  instructions. 

General  instructions. 
General  instructions. 


General  instructions. 

"Daily  summary  cables  need 
not  be  submitted  in  future. 
However,  you  should 
continue  to  press  remaining 
investigation  through 
sources  presently  being 
utilized  and  furnish  results 
by  cablegram  as  soon  as 
received." 


119 

Senator  Byrd.  So  you  were  kept  completely  informed  as  to  details 
as  the  case  progressed? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  1  do  not  know  that  you  can — that  it  is  accurate 
to  use  the  word  completely,  because  I  was  not  doAMi  in  the  nittA^ 
gritty  and  in  the  development  of  the  leads. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  you  were  kept  well  Informed? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  was  well  informed,  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  you  the  decisionmaker  as  to  the  scope  of  the 
investigation? 

Mr.  Gray.  As  to  the  scope? 

Senator  Byrd.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  Of  the  investigation  that  it  would  be  limited  to  the 
IOC,  to  the  violation  of  the  criminal  statutes  involving  mtercepted 
communications? 

Senator  Byrd.  As  to  the  scope. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  all  we  had,  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  you  made  the  decision? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  I "^ made  it  in  conjunction  with  the  Assistant 
Attorney  General  of  the  Criminal  Division,  and  U.S.  attorney, 
because  anything  they  wanted  us  to  investigate,  we  would  investigate. 
I  would  not  say^  no,  I  am  not  gomg  to  investigate,  but  what  we  had 
was  a  crimmal  violation  of  the  intercepted  communications  statutes 
as  the  case  developed.  We  did  not  know  what  we  had  initially,  to  be 
very  honest  with  you,  Senator. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  it  was  your  decision  as  to  whether  smy  leads 
would  be  follov.  ed  that  might  go  higher  up  than  the  seven  defendants? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not  make  any  decisions  on  leads,  and  this  is  where 
I  do  not  write  the  leads.  The  case  agents  write  the  leads,  they  are 
reviewed  by  the  field  supervisors,  the  Special  Agent  in  Charge  re- 
views them,  then  they  are  reviewed  over  by  the  Bureau  supervisors. 

Senator  Byrd.  Who  determines  as  to  whether  or  not  they  would 
be  pursued  further? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  are  being  pursued,  you  know,  as  soon  as  those 
leads  are  sent  out— the  teletype  goes  out,  Senator,  and  it  is  not  a 
question  of  where  a  decision  is  made.  We  added  a  lot  of  leads  to 
those  that  were  being  sent  out  by  the  office  of  origin,  and  by  we,  I 
mean  the  office  of  the  General  Investigative  D  vision,  and  the  chief 
of  the  Accounting  and  Fraud  Section  who  is  in  the  General  Investi- 
gative Division. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  you  required  to  clear  the  scope  of  the  investi- 
gation through  the  Justice  Department? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  we  work  with  them  verj'  closely  on  that. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  were  you  required  to  clear  the  scope  of  the 
investigation  through  the  Justice  Department,  or  was  this  a  deter- 
mination that  3'ou  would  make  yourself? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  do  not  think  it  was  a  determination  at  all.  I 
could  make  a  determination  but  I  would  have  to  investigate  what  the 
Department  of  Justice  told  me  to  investigate,  and  I  investigated 
within  our  jurisdiction. 

Senator  Byrd.  Who  made  the  determination  as  to  how  far  you  would 
go  in  the  investigation  and  as  to  whether  or  not  leads  would  be  fol- 
lowed which  may  have  pointed  to  people  in  the  White  House? 


120 

Mr.  Gray.  Oh,  we  followed  up  on  people  in  the  White  House,  and 
we  mter\newed  them,  and  I  would  be  happy  to  submit  to  the  com- 
mittee and  for  the  record,  a  list  of  the  people  interviewed  at  the 
White  House,  at  the  Committee  to  Re-Elect  the  President,  and  the 
dates  on  which  they  were  interviewed. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documents  for 
the  record:) 

INTERVIEWS  OF  WHITE  HOUSE  PEOPLE 


Name  Position  Date  of  interview 


White  House  personnel  interviewed: 

Charles  W.  Colson Special  Counsel  to  the  President... June    22,    June    26,    Au"     29 

A,         n     r.    ..      r    ,j  r,  .       -  Aug.  30,   1972. 

Alex  P.  Butterfield Deputy  Assistant  to  the  President  June  17  1972 

Alfred  Wong. Special   Agent   in   Charge,   Technical  Security,   U.S.    June  22',  June  27,  1972. 

Secret  Service. 

Bruce  Kehrii Staff  Secretary  to  the  President June  19,  Aug  14  1972 

James  George  Baker Protective  Security  Division  U.S.  Secret  Service,  Super-    June  29,  1972.    ' 

visory  Security  Specialist. 

John  Wesley  Dean  III....  Legal  Counsel  to  the  President .June27  July?  July8  1972 

Fred  Fielding Assistant  to  the  Legal  Counsel  to  the  President.. June  27,  Aug.  30  1972 

John  James  Caulfield ConsultanttotheDirectorof  Treasury  Law  Enforcement    June  26  1972 

Kathleen  Ann  Chenow...  Secretary  to  David  Young.. July  3  1972 

David  Reginald  Young Special  Staff  Assistant,  National  Security  Councij  July3'july7  Aug  30  197' 

John  D.  Ehrlichman Assistant  to  the  President  tor  Domestic  Affairs  July  21   1972' 

Dwight  L.  Chapin Deputy  Assistant  to  the  President  Aug  28  1972 

Gordon  Strachan Staff  Assistant  at  the  White  House  .  "        Do  ' 

u,u- ^iJ''^'"  ^- ^''^'"°"^ Assistant  to  the  President  for  Congressional  Relations...  Sept.  8, 1972. 

White  House  personnel  contacted  for  the  purpose  indicated,  though  not  interviewed: 

Wilbur  Jenkins Administrative  Officer,  White  House  (checked  records    Aug.  7, 1972. 

for  official  travel  of  Hunt). 
John  Campbell Staff   Assistant,   Office   of   Domestic   Council   (made         Do. 

available  travel   voucher   and    related   documents 

concerning  Liddy). 
Margaret  L.  Beale Personnel  Office,  Office  of  IVIanagement  and  Budget         Do. 

Executive  Office  of  the  President  (made  available 

copies  of  personnel  action  concerning  Liddy). 
James  Rogers Personnel  Office,  White  House  Office  (made  available         Do. 

forms  from  Hunt's  personnel  hie). 
Arthur  Bauer Fiscal  Service  Officer,  Office  of  Management  and  Bud-    Aug.  10, 1972. 

get.  Executive  Office  of  the  President  (made  available 

copy  of  official  time  and  attendance  records  regarding 

Liddy). 


INTERVIEWS  OF  COMMITTEE  TO  REELECT  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PERSONNEL 


John  N.  Mitchell Campaign  director July  5, 1972 

Robert  Mardian Special  assistant  to  the  campaign  manager July  17,  1972 

Jeb  Stuart  Magruder Deputy  campaign  director July  20, 1972. 

Robert  C.  Odie,  Jr Director  of  administration June  19,  June  20,  June  23 

,,      .     ^,  „,  June28,June29,Julyn,1972. 

Maurice  Stans Chairman  of  the  finance  committee,  CRP July  5,  July  14  ttwice)  July  28 

1972. 

Hugh  Walter  Sloan,  Jr.. Former  treasurer  of  the  finance  committee,  CRP July  17, 1972. 

Robert  L.  Houston Security  coordinator .  June  20,  June  26,  June  27 

,,.,,.      ,  .„        , .,  July  3,  July  13,  July  17,  1972. 

Millicent  (Penny)  Macey 

..(^'eason.... Security  officer.. June  30,  July  1,  July  2,  1972. 

Martha  Duncan Officer  manager.. June  30,  July  3, 1972 

Herbert  Lloyd  Porter Director  of  scheduling _ July  19,  1972. 

Fred  LaRue... Special  consultant  to  the  campaign  manager July  18,' July  21, 1972. 

Paul  E.  Barrick... Treasurer,  finance  committee,  CRP June  30  July  24   1972 

DeVan  L.  Shumway.. Director  of  public  affairs... July  24, 1972. 

Powell  A.  Moore.. Director  of  press  and  information  .  .  Do' 

Glen  J.  Sedam,  Jr General  counsel. June  23,  June  26,  July  18, 

Judith  Graham  Hoback Assistant  to  the  treasurer,  finance  committee,  CRP June  23,  July  18,  1972. 

Lee  Nunn Finance  chairman,  finance  committee,  CRP.  June  23,  July  13  1972 

Monico  Bungato Messenger,  mail  service June  26  1972 

Michael  Terrence  Masse Security  officer ...  June  30  1972 

Stephen  B.  King Bodyguard  for  Mrs.  Mitchell Do' 

Tom  Wince Driver  for  Mrs.  Mitchell Do. 

George  Roger  Houston Security  guard Do 

George  Ellis  Shanks.. do Do' 

James  William  Bennett.. do. Do' 

Timothy  Michael  Flynn do .                            "  Do' 

John  W.  Ernst do ./.....  Do! 

James  Edward  Cooper Security  supervisor. ..^  Do! 

Robert  Houston .do "  Do. 

Stephen  Tingley  Anderson   ..  Security  guard !!!!!!!!!!!!III  Do! 

Mrs.  Sally  Harmony Secretary  to  G.  Gordon  Liddy Do. 

Kristin  Forsberg Personal  secretary  to  Mrs.  Mitchell.  ...  Do. 

Maureen  C.  Devlin Receptionist Do. 


121 

INTERVIEWS  OF  COMMITTEE  TO  REELECT  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PERSONNEL— Continued 
Name  Position  Date  of  interview 


Sylvia  Panarites Secretary July  3, 1972. 

Michael  Miller.. Man  in  charge  of  victory  dinner June  30, 1972. 

Peter  Holmes.. Assistant  to  the  treasurer Do. 

Louis  James  Russell Investigator July  3,  1972. 

Peter  Fokine... Assistant  of  finance June  30, 1972. 

Tyloe  Washburn Assistant  to  the  assistant  treasurer Do. 

Kenneth  Talmage.. Aide  to  Maurice  Stans Do. 

Jane  Dannenhauer Secretary. June  30,  July  17,  1972. 

Florence  Thompson do June  30,  July  17,  1972. 

Margaret  Kerwan... do Do. 

Charles  Pashayan,  Jr Vice  chairman  on  the  finance  committee Do. 

V.  Elaine  Hall Special  projects Do. 

Gary  Langhorne  Washburn Do. 

Ann  Pinkerton Do. 

Connie  K.  Cudd Staff  secretary July  6,  1972. 

Lewis  Webster  Creel Security  guard July  12,  July  13,  1972. 

Ronald  Charles  Howard do... July  12,  1972. 

Ronald  Bruce  Buchanan do Do. 

Yolanda  Dorminy Secretary July  13,  July  17, 1972. 

Peter  A.  Holmes... Assistant  to  the  treasurer... July  18,  1972. 

Laura  Alice  Frederick Personal  secretary  to  Fred  LaRue. Do. 

Kenneth  Wells  Parkinson Counsel... July  21, 1972. 

Paul  L.  O'Brien Cocounsel July  21,  August  11,  1972. 

Truman  Jacob  Weaver Security  guard July  18,  1972. 

Joseph  Earl  Ray  Mills do July  24, 1972. 

James  E.  Caudill Security  man  for  Republican  National  committee July  25,  1972. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  did  the  agents  have  full  responsibility  for 
making  their  o^\^l  decisions  as  to  how  far  to  proceed  with  those  leads? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  the}"  have  full  decision  to  suggest,  but  when  it 
comes  to  a  judgment  question,  3'ou  know,  the}"  are  pretty  responsive 
to  power  and  they  know  when  the}"  begin  gettmg  close  that  they  have 
got  to  ask,  and  they  asked  when  it  came  down  to  interviewing  John 
Eluiichman,  for  example. 

Senator  Byrd.  So,  then,  somebody  had  to  make  a  decision  as  to  the 
scope,  is  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Byrd.  Who  made  that  decision? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  made  this  decision  with  Assistant  Attorney  General 
Henry  Petersen  to  interview  Jolm  Ehrlichman. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  you  made  the  decision  yourself? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  but  I  consulted  Henry  Petersen.  I  did  not  do  it 
without  his  consultation. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  the  FBI  consult  at  any  time  with  the  Justice 
Department  as  to  how  the  FBI  should  proceed  in  the  case? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  su-;  because  we  are  working  hand  in  glove  with  the 
case  agents  working  at  the  assistant  U.S.  attorney  level  and  the  Bureau 
supervisors  working  at  the  Criminal  Division  level  and,  yes,  there  were 
conferences. 

Senator  Byrd.  Who  were  the  contacts  between  Justice  and  the 
FBI? 

Mr.  Gr.\y.  The  Criminal  Division  and  the  Bureau  supervisors  in 
the  General  Investigative  Division  and  me  talkmg  with  the  As- 
sistant Attorney  General  of  the  Crimmal  Di^"ision  and  with  the 
Attorney  General  and  my  No.  2  man  domg  the  same  thmg,  the 
acting  associate  director.  You  know,  we  work  together  and  we  tele- 
phone and  we  talk  back  and  forth. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  you  consult  mth  Mr.  Kleindienst,  the  Attorney 
•  General  himself? 


122 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not  consult  with,  him  in  the  sense  that  I  asked 
him  for  directions  or  guidance  or  orders.  I  pushed  the  FBI  button  and 
said  go,  give  it  a  full  court  press,  and  the}^  know  exactly  what  to  do, 
Senator,  and  he  put  no  restrictions,  no  limitations  on  me.  I  testified 
this  morning  a  couple  of  times  that  if  any  of  the  senior  officials  of  the 
FBI  were  called  before  this  committee  or  the  Ervin  select  com- 
mittee, and  asked  whether  any  restrictions  or  limitations  were  placed 
upon  them,  they  w^ould  say,  no. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  any  FBI  agent  on  the  case  feel  there  were  leads 
which  should  be  pursued  and  which  were  necessary  in  the  case  but 
which  you  or  the  Justice  Department  told  them  not  to  pursue? 

Mr.  Gray,  If  they  did  I  do  not  know  about  it.  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  they  did  not  feel  that.  Some  of  the  people  might  have  felt 
that,  but  they  did  not  report  them  up  to  me  and  say,  "Hey,  why  are 
we  not  doing  this?" 

Senator  Byrd.  So,  the  committee  is  to  understand  that  no  agent  at 
any  time  wished  to  pursue  any  lead  which  was  turned  down  by  you 
or  by  the  Justice  Department? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  can  recollect  none.  But  before  I  answer  under  oath  so 
categoricall}^,  I  would  want  to  check  because  that  is  a  pretty  broad 
cpiestion.  I  testified  earlier  this  morning  that  there  were  instances  in 
which  I  stopped  the  investigation  for  a  couple  of  days  until  I  could 
get  something  clarified  with  regard  to  particular  people,  I  think  it 
was  in  response  to  questions  from  Senator  Hart  involving  the  Central 
Intelligence  Agency,  and  then  I  said  go.  I  turned  on  the  green  light. 

Senator  Byrd.  FBI  agents  were  not  then  really  free  to  follow  leads, 
were  they? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  certainly  were  free  to  follow  any  lead  they  wanted 
to  follow  that  involved  a  criminal  violation  of  the  statutes  of  the 
United  States  in  which  we  have  jurisdiction. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  when  it  came  to  higher-ups  in  the  White  House 
were  they  to  follow  leads? 

Mr.  Grav.  I  know  of  no  restrictions  that  were  placed  upon  them 
but  the  agents  know,  Senator,  just  as  operating  practice — and  any 
President,  I  feel  sure,  would  want  to  be  accorded  the  same  treatment 
by  his  subordinates — when  you  get  that  close,  let  us  be  real  sure  that 
we  want  to  go  there,  you  know,  because  this  is  going  to  become  news 
right  awa}^  that  we  are  interviewing  this  fellow.  This  is  just  a  fact  of 
life  and  I  think  the  real  fact  of  life  is  that  we  interviewed,  because 
we  thought  we  had  to. 

Senator  Byrd.  So  when  clearance  was  sought  the  green  light  was 
given? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Byrd.  In  every  mstance? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  not  going  to  answer  that  question  that  categoricalh* 
because  there  may  be  some  instance,  even  in  my  intensive  review  of 
this  case  and  my  participation  in  it,  where  I  could  make  an  error  and 
I  would  rather  reserve  the  answer  to  that  so  I  can  check  it  and  give 
a  statement  for  the  record.  Senator  Byrd. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

After  checking  the  matter,  I  have  been  informed  there  were  no  leads  the  Agents 
wanted  to  follow  which  they  were  not  permitted  to  do. 


123 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  Mr.  Kunkel  ever  ask  to  interview  any  party 
and 

Mr.  Gray.  Are  you  referring  to  Mr.  Colson  b}^  any  chance,  Senator? 
I  do  not  know.  If  you  can  tell  me  the  name  of  the  person  you  are 
talking  about. 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Kunkel,  you  referred  to  the  name  earlier. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  the  SAC  in  charge  of  the  Washington 
field  office. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  he  at  any  time  suggest  any  party  be  inter- 
viewed, which  suggestion  was  turned  down? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  recall  any  such  but  I  will  check  the  record 
again  and  furnish  an  answer  to  that  question  on  the  basis  of  the  full 
record  after  careful  examination. 

(Mr.    Gray  subsequently  submitted   the  following  document  for 

the  record :) 

After  checking  the  record  I  find  my  recollection  was  correct  and  that  no  inter- 
views suggested  by  SAC  Kunkel  were  turned  down. 

Senator  Byrd.  Have  any  FBI  officials  associated  with  the  investi- 
gation of  the  Watergate  inquuy  smce  been  transferred  out  of 
Washington? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  they  have  and  I  would  like  to  give  the  reasons 
for  the  transfer.  The  assistant  director  m  charge  of  the  General 
Investigative  Division,  Mr.  Charles  W.  Bates,  came  to  me  and  asked 
if  he  could  return  to  San  Francisco  as  SAC  when  he  found  that 
position  was  being  vacated.  He  came  to  me  and  made  that  personal 
request  and  I  said,  yes;  he  could.  I  certainly  considered  that  mimy 
people  would  understand,  would  interpret  this  to  be  Gray  transferrmg 
somebody  out  of  Washington  who  had  a  role  in  the  Watergate.  In 
fact,  Charlie  Bates  and  I  discussed  it  and  I  said,  "Charlie,  the  heck 
with  it.  There  is  nothmg  mvolved  in  this,  you  want  to  go  to  San 
Francisco,  I  agree." 

SAC  Kunkel,  who  was  special  agent  in  charge  of  the  Washington 
field  office,  was  transferred  to  St.  Louis  for  another  reason  and  I 
would  rather  not  disclose  it. 

Senator  Byrd.  Would  you  disclose  it  to  the  committee? 

Mr.  Gray.  Oh,  I  will  disclose  it  to  the  committee,  absolutely,  and 
in  copious  detail,  but  it  involves  a  personal  and  disciplinary  matter 
and  I  do  not  want  to  air  it. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  anyone  else  transferred? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  there  are  lots  of  people  transferred,  ^Senator, 
and  I  will  supply  to  the  committee  a  full  record  of  all  transfers  since, 
of  kev  officials,  SAC's  and  above,  since  I  have  been  Acting  Director 
of  the  FBI. 

Senator  Byrd.  No;  I  am  talking  about  FBI  officials  associated 
with  the  direction  of  the  Watergate  incident. 

Mr.  Gray.  With  the  Watergate,  oh,  I  see. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  mentioned  Mr.  Kunkel,  and  you  have  men- 
tioned Mr.  Bates. 

Mr.  Gray.  Right.  Henry  Shultz,  who  was  the  inspector's  No.  1  man, 
who  is  now  a  SAC  in  New  York,  the  special  agent  in  charge  of  General 
Crime  Division,  but  once  again,  that  is  a  promotion  for  him.  He  was 
transferred  first  to  the  Inspection  Division,  which  is  a  lateral  pro- 
motion in  the  FBI,  and  then  transferred  to  New  York. 


124 

There  was  a  resignation,  you  know,  one  of  the  men  resigned  because 
he  thought  that  under  my  new  pohcy  of  exchangmg  officials  between 
the  field  and  headquarters  he  was  going  to  go  next  to  the  field,  so  I 
am  told,  and  this  is  hearsay  and  I  would  not  like  to — I  will  reveal  to 
the  committee  this  man's  name  and  give  the  committee  the  full  de- 
tails and  circumstances  but,  with  regard  to  his  privacy,  I  would  not 
like  to  spell  it  out  here  on  the  public  record. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  there  an^^one  else  associated  with  the  direction 
of  the  Watergate  inc^uir}'  who  has  since  been  transferred  out  of 
Washington? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know  but  I  will  furnish  for  the  record  the 
exact  information  that  3^ou  want.  Senator  Byrd.  I  cannot  recall  hny 
others. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  Mr.  Charles  Bolz? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  he  was  not  transferred. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  beg  your  pardon? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  was  not  transferred.  He  was  the  man  I  was  referring 
to,  since  3'ou  raised  his  name.  He  is  the  man  I  was  referring  to  who, 
under  mA'  new  polic}^  of  top  people  going  from  headcjuarters  to  field 
and  field  to  headquarters,  submitted  his  resignation  and  went  over  to 
HUD.  I  think  if  Mr.  Bolz  were  called  before  this  committee  probably 
he  would  state  under  oath  there  was  no  problem  at  all  with  Watergate. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  he  associated  directly  with  Watergate? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  he  was. 

Senator  Byrd.  What  agency  is  he  now  with? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  is  mth  HUD,  I  think,  but  I  am  not  sure. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

I  have  stated  in  response  to  a  question  by  Senator  Byrd  that  I  would  furnish 
for  the  record  the  names  of  anyone  associated  with  the  direction  of  the  Watergate 
inquiry  who  has  since  been  transferred  out  of  Washington.  I  have  mentioned 
Charles  W.  Bates,  Robert  G.  Kunkel,  Henry  A.  Schutz,  Jr.,  and  Charles  Bolz. 
On  checking  the  record  I  find  that  Mr.  Schutz  had  no  connection  with  the  case. 
However,  there  is  one  other  individual  who  participated  in  the  direction  of  the 
Watergate  inquiry  for  a  short  j^eriod  of  time  at  FBI  Headquarters  and  who 
is  now  assigned  to  our  Boston  Oif  ce,  SA  Charles  T.  Gillespie.  Mr.  Gillespie  at 
the  time  was  a  Supervisory  Special  Agent  in  the  General  Investigative  Division. 
He  was  Number  1  Man  to 'Mr.  Bolz.  Prior  to  the  Watergate  matter,  Mr.  Gillespie 
expressed  a  desire  to  return  to  investigative  work  in  the  field.  I  approved  his 
transfer  to  the  Boston  Office  on  June  20,  1972,  however,  he  did  not  report  there 
until  July  18,   1972.  The  Watergate  inquiry  had  no  bearing  on  his  transfer. 

To  summarize  information  previously  set  forth,  Mr.  Charles  W.  Bates,  then 
Assistant  Director,  General  Investigative  Division,  at  his  own  request  was 
transferred  to  our  San  Francisco  Office  as  SAC  arriving  there  November  17, 
1972.  The  Watergate  inquiry  had  no  bearing  on  his  transfer.  Mr.  Robert  G. 
Kunkel,  then  SAC  of  the  Washington  Field  Office,  as  a  result  of  a  matter  entirely 
unrelated  to  the  Watergate  inquirj^,  was  transferred  as  SAC  of  the  St.  Louis  Otrce 
arriving  there  October  26,  1972.  jNIr.  Charles  Bolz,  then  Chief,  Accounting  and 
Fraud  Section,  General  Investigative  Division,  by  letter  dated  December  6, 
1972,  submitted  his  resignation  to  be  effective  close  of  business  December  23, 
1972,  indicating  he  desired  to  remain  in  the  Washington  area  which  he  realized 
presented  a  conflict  with  his  obligation  to  be  available  for  any  and  all  assignments. 
For  personal  reasons  he  felt  bound  to  accept  another  position  which  would  permit 
him  to  remain  in  the  Washington  area.  The  Watergate  inquiry  had  no  bearing 
on  his  resignation. 

There  were  no  other  individuals  transferred  from  the  Washington  area  who 
participated  in  the  direction  of  the  Watergate  inquiry. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  were  you  first  aware  of  the  identity  of  the  five 
defendants  of  the  Watergate  affair? 


125 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know.  I  vdW  have  to  look  in  the  teletype  or  in  a 
summary  and  furnish  that  information  for  the  record.  That  is  so 
specific  a  question  I  just  cannot  answer  it. 

Senator  Byrd.  How  were  you  made  aware  of  their  identity? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  wdll  have  to  furnish  that  for  the  record,  too. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

From  a  review  of  the  records,  I  find  that  about  12:30  pm,  Pacific  DayUght  Time, 
June  17,  1972,  the  Special  Agent  in  Charge  of  the  Los  Angeles  Office  briefed  me 
concerning  the  early  facts  which  were  then  known.  The  names  of  the  individuals 
involved  at  that  time  were  later  found  to  be  aliases.  The  information  which  was 
furnished  to  me  at  that  time  dealt  with  the  arrests  of  the  subjects  at  the  Water- 
gate, very  sketchy  information  about  materials  they  were  in  possession  of  and  the 
fact  that  the  FBI  was  conducting  investigation  of  this  situation.  At  about  3:11 
pm,  Pacific  Daylight  Time,  June  17,  the  Los  Angeles  Office  briefed  me  in  more 
detail.  That  briefing  was  to  the  effect  that  the  Watergate  security  guard  had  found 
tape  around  two  door  locks,  he  believed  a  burglary  was  in  progress,  he  called  the 
police  who  apprehended  five  subjects  in  the  Democratic  Headquarters.  The  true 
identity  of  Barker,  Gonzalez,  Martinez  and  Fiorini  was  then  known,  but  McCord 
had  not  yet  been  identified  as  the  true  name  of  the  individual  who  when  appre- 
hended gave  the  name  Edward  Martin.  That  briefing  gave  information  about  the 
material  which  the  subjects  had  in  their  possession  such  as  lockpicking  devices, 
surgical  gloves,  camera  equipment,  transceivers  and  a  bugging  device. 

I  was  informed  that  search  warrants  were  being  issued  for  hotel  rooms  used  by 
the  subjects  and  for  the  vehicle  they  Avere  known  to  be  using.  I  was  informed  that 
attorney  Michael  Douglas  Cadd^^  gratuitously  appeared  at  the  IMetropolitan 
Police  Department,  Second  District  Headquarters,  and  stated  he  was  representing 
the  subjects  who  were  in  custody  although  the  subjects  had  not  previouslj^  made  a 
telephone  call  to  contact  him  or  anyone  else  after  they  were  in  custody.  I  was  also 
informed  that  all  of  the  subjects  refused  to  be  interviewed  or  to  state  where  they 
came  from,  for  whom  they  worked  or  their  purposes  for  being  in  the  building.  I 
was  advised  they  had  a  substantial  quantity  of  brand  new  $100  bills  in  their  pos- 
session and  that  further  investigation  by  the  FBI  was  going  forward.  At  about 
3:4.5  pm,  FBIHQ  called  the  Los  Angeles  Office  to  advise  the  identity  of  McCord 
and  this  was  relayed  to  me  by  the  Los  Angeles  Office  shortly  thereafter. 


Senator  By'rd.  Were  you 

Mr.  Gray'.  I  believe  it  was  in  one  of  those  telephone  calls  when  the 
names  were  given  to  me  but  I  am  going  to  have  to  check.  I  have  the 
phone  calls  all  listed  here  and  I  just  do  not  have  all  of  the  details  be- 
hind each  phone  call  listed. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  a^ou  aware  that  one  of  the  defendants  was  a 
former  FBI  agent  and  CIA  employee  and  was  the  salaried  security 
coordinator  to  the  Republican  Committee,  and  the  Committee  to 
Re-Elect  the  President? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  information  I  received  is  June  17,  3:45  Pacific  Day- 
light Time,  to  the  effect  that  McCord^tliis  was  about  the  fifth  or 
sixth  phone  call — McCord  having  been  identified  as  an  ex-FBI  agent 
and  security  officer  for  the  Committee  to  Re-Elect  the  President. 

Senator  By'Rd.  Did  you  know  Mr.  McCord? 

Mr,  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Senator  Byrd.  Had  you  ever  heard  of  him  previous  to  that? 

Mr.  Gray'.  No,  sir;  I  had  not. 

Senator  Byrd.  During  the  Watergate  trial  it  was  reportedh^  alleged 
that  Mr.  James  McCord,  Jr.,  was  "plugged"  in  to  the  FBI.  Can  you 
tell  us  how  Mr.  McCord  was  plugged  in  to  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray'.  No,  sir.  Mr.  James  McCord,  Jr.?  Is  that  the  same  man? 

Senator  By'rd.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  do  not  know  how  he  was  plugged  in  to  the  FBI 
and  I  do  not  know  that  he  was. 

91-331—73 9 


126 

Senator  Byrd.  This  was  reportedly  alleged  during  the  trial.  Has 
anyone  in  the  FBI  been  asked  to  check  on  this? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  but  we  will  sure  check  on  it  and  submit  an 
answer  to  the  committee.  It  is  the  first  I  have  heard  of  it. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  hear  it  through  the  press,  as  I  say.  I  should  think 
it  would  be  important  for  the  FBI  to  check  this  out. 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is  and  we  will  submit  the  information  we  find  to  the 
Committee,  sir. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequentl}-  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 

record :) 

Upon  checking,  Senator,  I  find  that  Mr.  McCord  was  an  FBI  Agent  from  Octo- 
ber 25,  1948,  until  he  voluntarily  resigned  to  enter  ])rivate  business  February  18, 
1951.  We  did  not  uncover  any  information,  prior  to,  during,  or  after  the  Watergate 
investigation  to  the  effect  that  McCord  received  classified  information'^froni^or 
was  "plugged  into"  the  FBI. 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Robert  Houston,  one  of  McCord's  assistants 
to  the  Nixon  Committee,  in  describing  his  duties  under  McCord  said 
"Part  of  my  instructions  were  to  receive  and  record  instructions  from 
outside  police  forces.  The  information  I  got  came  from  the  FBI."  Can 
3'OU  tell  me  what  information  was  turned  over  to  Houston  or  McCord 
or  anybod}'  else? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  believe  any  information  was  turned  over  to 
anybody.  Are  3^ou  talking  prior  to  Watergate? 

Senator  Byrd.  I  am  talking  with  reference  to  the  Watergate. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  he  got  information  from  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  regarding  the  Watergate  incident  and  the  conduct  of 
the  investigation? 

Senator  Byrd.  I  am  quoting  him,  "Part  of  my  instructions  were  to 
receive  instructions  from  McCord",  I  assume  "were  to  receive  and 
record  information  from  outside  police  forces.  The  information  I  got 
came  the  FBI."  This  may  not  have  been 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  think  he  was,  Senator.  What  I  think  they  are 
talking  about  is  some  of  their  intelligence  information  with  regard  to 
demonstrations  and  harassment  and  the  rest  of  the  things  that  we 
are  talking  about,  because  I  know  of  no  information  that  we  furnished 
to  a  Mr.  Houston.  I  know  who  Houston  is  because  of  the  investigation 
but  once  again,  we  will,  if  you  will  tell  me  from  where  you  are  citing 
that  statement,  we  will  check  it  out  and  run  it  down  and  give  you  a 
full  report.  I  will  give  the  committee  a  report. 

Senator  Byrd.  Well,  even  so,  even  so,  if  Mr.  Houston  was  receiving 
information  from  the  FBI,  I  think  the  committee  ought  to  know  what 
information  was  turned  over  to  him. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  think  Mr.  Houston  was.  That  is  my  testimony 
right  now.  What  I  am  saying  to  you  is  if  he  was  we  will  find  out  about 
itand  we  will  give  3^ou  a  report  to  the  committee. 

(Mr.    Gray  "subsequently  submitted   the  following  document  for 

the  record :) 

After  checking  our  records,  Senator,  I  find  that  to  our  knowledge  no  information 
was  given  to  Mr.  Houston. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  you  personally  know  or  have  contact  with 
anyone  at  the  Committee  for  the  Reelection  of  the  President? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir.  I  know  people  there,  but  I  had  no  contact 
with  them. 


127 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  you  have  contact  with  anyone  emploj'ed  by 
the  Committee  for  the  Reelection  of  the  President? 

Mr.  Gray.  Contact  when  or  where  or  for  what  purpose? 

Senator  Byrd.  At  any  time. 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  committee. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  had  no  contact  with  any  employee  of  that 
committee? 

Mr.  Gray.  No.  Except  during  the  conduct  of  this  investigation, 
the  FBI  did;  we  interviewed  those  people.  But  I  had  no  personal 
contact.  I  had  no  telephone  calls.  I  had  no  letters.  I  had  no  visits. 

Senator  Byrd.  Irrespective  of  the  Watergate  investigation,  did 
you  have  any  contacts? 

Mr.  Gray'^,  No. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  3^ou  know  anyone  on  the  committee?  Did  you 
know  anyone  on  the  committee  staff?  Did  you  ever  have  any  contact 
with  them? 

Mr.  Gray.  Sure;  I  knew  those  people — sure.  I  knew  Bob  Mardian 
and  John  Mitchell  and  Fred  LaRue;  I  came  to  know  those  people 
after  I  came  to  Washington  and  after  1969.  I  did  not  know  them 
before  that. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  did  3"ou  first  learn  of  Mr.  Lidch''s  involvement 
in  the  Watergate  break-in? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  will  have  to  give  you  the  exact  information  because 
I  did  not  provide  mvself  with  that  kind  of  detailed  information  today 
and  I  will  have  to  submit  it.  It  probably  came  to  me  under  an  alias 
first  and  then  probably  came  to  me  with  his  true  name  as  we  developed 
it.  I  know  I  have  the  names  of  the  people  who  were  arrested  but  those, 
as  we  know,  were  aliases  as  we  later  found  out.  But  I  will  have  to 
find  the  exact  time  that  George  Gordon  Liddy's  name  was  delivered 
to  me,  Senator. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  from  whom. 

Mr.  Gray.  And  from  whom;  yes. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for 
the  record :) 

I  find,  Senator  Byrd,  upon  checking  the  records,  that  on  June  18,  1972,  we 
first  learned  that  one  George  Leonard,  later  identified  as  George  Gordon  Liddy, 
was  registered  at  the  Watergate  Hotel  with  the  group  which  was  arrested  at  the 
Democratic  Committee  Headquarters.  Extensive  efforts,  of  course,  were  made 
to  endeavor  to  identify'  Leonard.  On  June  28,  1972,  Assistant  Director  Bates 
directed  a  memorandum  to  Acting  Associate  Director  Felt  which  stated  that  at 
12:50  P.]\L  that  date,  SAC  Kunkel  had  called  to  advise  that  in  tracing  telephone 
calls  of  Martinez  and  Barker,  one  of  the  numbers  called  at  the  Committee  to 
Reelect  the  President  was  that  of  a  Mr.  Gordon  Liddy.  Our  Agents  attempted 
to  interview  Liddj'  that  da.y  and  he  refused  to  be  interviev/ed.  Subsequently,  on 
7/3/72,  Liddy's  photograph  was  positively  identified  as  being  the  individual 
known  as  George  Leonard. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  3^011  aware  that  \h\  Liddy  was  a  former  FBI 
agent  and  that  he  was  finance  counsel  for  the  Committee  to  Re-Elect 
the  President  at  the  time  of  the  Watergate  break-in? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  was  not.  I  did  not  even  know  Mr.  Lidd}'. 

Senator  Byrd.   You  did  not  know  him  personally' ? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Senator  Byrd.  Even  through  the  Committee  to  Re-elect  the 
President? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 


128 

Senator  Byrd.  You  indicated  earlier  todaj^  that  the  President  had 
suggested  to  ^Irs.  Gray  she  not  work  for  the  Committee  for  the 
Re-Election  of  the  President. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  She  was  going  to  go  douii  there  as  a 
volunteer,  a  lot  of  ladies  were  volunteering  to  do  A\'ork  for  the 
Committee  to  Re-Elect  the  President,  and  she  said  to  the  President 
when  we  came  back  from  Mr.  Hoover's  funeral,  "Pat  has  told  me  I 
must  never  ask  questions  of  the  President  but  I  want  to  know  if  it 
would  be  all  right  for  me  to  volunteer  to  work  for  the  Committee  to 
Re-Elect  the  President."  And  he  said,  "No,  you  must  not,  3"ou 
cannot  do  that,"  and  she  did  not. 

Senator  Byrd.  Had  she  previously  worked  for  the  committee? 

Mr.  Gray.  No  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  did  you  first  become  aware  of  Mr.  Howard 
Hunt's  role  in  the  case? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  it  may  have  been  when  I  read  the  teletj^pes 
regarding  his  investigation,  regarding  the  fact  that  we  interviewed  him 
that  Saturday  evening,  the  17th,  but  I  will  have  to  once  again  go  to 
the  record  and  provide  3'ou  mth  the  exact  information,  Senator. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  indicate — ■ — 

Mr.  Gray.  From  whom. 

Senator  Byrd  (continuing).  From  whom  the  information  came. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequent!}"  submitted  the  follo\ving  document  for  the 
record :) 

After  checking  the  records,  I  find  the  FBI  first  became  aware  of  Mr.  Hunt's 
involvement  in  this  case  during  the  search  conducted  on  the  afternoon  of  June  17, 
1972,  of  the  two  rooms  at  the  Watergate  which  were  rented  by  the  arrested  men. 
During  that  search  an  envelope  containing  a  country  club  biU  of  Mr.  Hunt's 
was  found.  Also  located  during  this  search  was  an  address  book  which  belonged 
to  Bernard  Barker  and  contained  the  letters  "HH,  W.  House,"  beside  which  letters 
was  telephone  number  202-4-36-2282. 

A  check  of  the  field  office  indices  showed  we  had  previously  conducted  a  Special 
Inquiry  investigation  on  Hunt  in  1971  at  which  time  he  was  being  considered  for 
a  job  as  Consultant  to  the  White  House.  Subsequent  contact  was  made  with 
Mr.  Butterfield  at  the  White  House  between  6:00  and  7:00  pm,  June  17,  1972, 
and  he  indicated  Mr.  Hunt  had  previously  worked  as  a  White  House  consultant, 
but  Mr.  Butterfield  did  not  believe  he  was  then  employed  by  the  White  House. 

Senator,  it  is  my  recollection  that  I  personalh^  was  advised  of  Mr.  Hunt's 
involvement  in  this  case  by  my  associate,  W.  Mark  Felt,  who  telephoned  me  on 
June  18,  1972. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  you  aware  that  Mr.  Hunt  had  been  a 
consultant  to  the  White  House? 

Mr.  Gray.  Not  until  the  investigative  reports  began  coming  across 
my  desk.  I  did  not  know  Howard  Hunt. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  you  aware  that  he  had  worked  for  ]\Ir. 
Charles  Colson? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  was  not. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  a^ou  know  Mr.  Hunt  personally? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir.  '^ 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  the  FBI  ciuestion  Mr.  Hunt? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  we  interviewed  him  that  evening  and  he  did 
not  do  very  much  talking.  As  I  recall,  the  interview  report  said  that 
he  wanted  to  consult  an  attorney. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  you  aware  that  Mr.  Colson  sent  Howard  Hunt 
to  Denver  last  March  to  interview  the  ITT  lobbjdst,  Dita  Beard? 


129 

Mr.  Gray.  I  was  not,  no,  sir;  I  was  not  until  the  investigation, 
this  Watergate  investigation,  developed  and  we  found  it  out  through 
that.  I  believe  w^e  found  it  out  through  that.  I  may  be  misspeaking 
myself  and  I  had  better  check  the  record  on  that  before  I  get  on  with 
that  one. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for 
the  record :) 

After  checking  our  records,  Senator,  I  find  that  Mr.  Colson  was  interviewed 
by  Washington  Field  Office  on  June  22,  June  26,  August  29  and  August  30,  1972. 
Concerning  Howard  Hunt's  travel  and  reimbursement  for  travel  expenses,  he 
said  on  August  29,  1972,  he  was  aware  that  Mr.  Hunt  traveled  on  a  frequent 
basis,  but  that  there  were  only  two  trips  that  Mr.  Hunt  made  which  were  au- 
thorized by  Mr.  Colson.  He  assumed  the  other  trips  were  on  behalf  of  some  other 
):)erson.  With  respect  to  the  trips  that  Mr.  Colson  authorized,  one  was  to  Denver, 
Colorado,  in  March,  1972,  in  connection  with  the  "ITT  case."  Mr.  Colson  did 
not  state  what  was  learned  by  Mr.  Hunt  on  this  trip  and  the  matter  was  not 
pursued  by  our  Special  Agents  since  there  was  no  relationship  between  that  trip 
and  the  Watergate  matter  and  we  were  not  investigating  ITT. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  you  the  decisionmaker  with  regard  to  the 
information  that  would  be  supplied  to  the  Judiciary  Committee 
during  the  hearings  on  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Kleindienst? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  was  not  the  decisionmaker  until  there  came 
an  exchange  here  when  it  was  thought  that  Mr.  Kleindienst  ought  to 
take  himself  out  of  the  position  of  making  those  decisions.  I  do  not 
remember  excatl}^  when  that  was.  I  would  have  to  go  back  to  the  record 
but  there  did  come  a  time  when  I,  as  Deputy  Attorney  General 
Designate,  made  those  decisions  on  the  basis  of  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions of  the  Department  and  on  the  advice  that  I  received  from  the 
Antitrust  Division. 

Senator  Byrd.  You  do  not  recall  the  date? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  recall  the  date;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  Will  3'ou  supply  that  for  the  record? 

j\Ir.  Gray.  Oh,  yes,  sir;  we  will  do  that.  W^e  will  have  to  check  the 
record  of  testimon}^  of  the  ITT  hearings. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documents  for 
the  record:) 

Mr.  Gray.  Upon  checking  the  record  I  find  that  I  started  making  the  decisions 
regarding  the  furnishing  of  information  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  during  the 
hearings  on  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Kleindienst  on  either  March  9  or  10,  1972. 
That  is  as  precise  as  I  can  be.  My  first  letter  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  in  which  certain  information  was  furnished  and  other  information 
w^as  withheld  is  dated  March  17,  1972.  This  letter  and  letters  from  me  dated 
March  23  and  24,  1972  addressed  to  James  F.  Flug,  April  4,  1972  to  Mr.  Flug, 
tw^o  letters  of  April  7,  1972  addressed  to  Senator  James  O.  Eastland,  letter  of 
April  11,  1972  and  letter  of  April  28,  1972,  with  enclo.sures  addressed  to  Senator 
Eastland,  are  provided  for  insertion  in  the  record, 

March  17,  1972. 
Hon.  Jamks  O.  Eastland, 
Chairman,  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dkar  Mr.  Chairman:  On  Monday  evening,  March  13,  Mr.  .lohn  Holloman, 
Committee  Chief  Coimsel,  delivered  to  the  Department  a  document  entitled 
"List  of  Documents  Requested  for  Senate  Judiciary  Hearing  as  of  March  13,  1972." 
I  am  forwarding  some  of  the  documents  on  that  list.  Other  documents  oa  the  list 
do  not  exist  or  cannot  be  fovmd.  Some  have  already  been  supplied  to  the  Com- 
mittee. Finally,  the  Department  of  Justice  declines  to  supply  some  of  the  docu- 
ments requested  for  the  reasons  stated  below. 

Following  is  an  item-by-item  response  to  the  list: 

Item  No.  1. — Copy  of  the  Attorney  General  Memorandum  in  the  Canteen  case, 
dated  April  7,  1969. 

Attached. 


130 

We  request  that  this  document  be  available  for  inspection  bv  Senators  only,  that 
no  copies  be  made  and  that  it  be  returned  to  the  Department  of  Justice  "at  the 
conclusion  of  these  hearings. 

Item  No.  2. — Xerox  of  any  notes,  buck  slips,  and  memoranda  showing  back- 
ground behind  filing  of  appUcations  to  delay  submission  of  jurisdictional  statement 
m  Gnnnell  case  in  Supreme  Court. 

None. 

Item  No.  3. — Xerox  of  any  notes,  buck  slips,  and  memoranda  relating  to  selection 
and/or  appointment  of  Richard  Ramsden  as  coasultant,  especially  the  conflict  of 
interest  form  required  by  Executive  Order. 

None. 

Item  No.  4- — Xerox  of  any  memoranda  reflecting  receipt  of  Bruce  McLaury  oral 
opinion  on  ITT  arguments. 

None. 

Ilcm  No.  5.— Copy  of  the  original  of  a  letter  dated  Sept.  21,  1971  from  Mr. 
Reuljeu  B.  Robertson  III  to  Deputy  Attorney  General  Klcindienst. 

Attached. 

Item  No.  6. — Xerox  of  (he  copy  of  the  Robertson  letter  that  Robertson  sent  to 
McLaren. 

Attached. 

Item  No.  7. — Xerox  of  any  notes,  Ijuck  slips,  and  memoranda  showing  background 
behind  Sept.  22,  1971  reply  from  iNlcLaren  to  Robertson. 

None  in  addition  to  the  documents  we  have  already  produced. 

Hem  No.  8. — Copy  of  the  file  copy  of  a  letter  dated  Sept.  22,  1971  from  Assistant 
Attorney  General  Richard  W.  AIcLaren  to  Mr.  Reuben  B.  Robertson  III  in 
response  to  a  Sept.  21,  1971  letter  from  Mr.  Robertson  to  the  Deputy  Attorney 
General. 

Attached. 

Item  No.  .9.— Copy  of  the  original  of  a  memorandum  dated  April  9,  1969  from 
Assistant  Attorney  General  Richard  W.  McLaren  to  the  Deputy  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, re  "ITT-Canteen." 

Attached. 

Item  No.  10 — Copy  of  the  original  of  the  memorandum  dated  October  13,  1970 
from  Assistant  Attorney  General  Richard  W.  McLaren  to  the  Deput^'  Attorney 
General. 

We  are  unable  to  locate  the  original  memorandum.  A  better  copy  of  the  file 
copy  of  this  memorandum  is  attached. 

Item  No.  12.— Copy  of  the  file  copy  of  a  letter  dated  Jan.  27,  1969  to  Mr.  Harold 
S.  Geneen  from  Robert  A.  Hammond  III,  Acting  Assistant  Attorney  General, 
Antitrust  Division,  by  John  W.  Poole,  Jr.,  Attorney,  Antitrust  Division. 

Attached. 

Item  No.  13. — Xerox  of  complete  "original"  of  letter  from  Frank  DeMarco  to 
Henrj-  Peterson. 

Previously  supplied  to  Committee. 

Item  No.  14. — Xerox  of  "file  copy"  of  letter  from  Henry  Peterson,  by  John 
Ke(>ney,  to  Frank  DeMarco. 

Previously  supplied  to  Committee. 

Item.  No.  15. — Any  notes,  buck  slips,  and  memoranda  showing  background  of 
Peterson  letter  to  DeMarco. 

None. 

Item  No.  16. — Xerox  of  any  copies  of  Walsh  letter  to  Kleindienst,  other  than 
"original." 

None. 

Item.  No.  17. — Chronology  of  ITT  filings  requested  by  Senator  Burdick. 

We  are  providing  a  copy  of  the  docket  entries  maintained  by  the  Department  in 
the  ITT  cases. 

Item  No.  18. — All  Ramsden  filings  with  the  Commerce  Department. 

In  i:)rocess  of  obtaining  for  review  and  determination. 

Item  No.  19. — Any  written  instructions  to  Ramsden,  etc. 

None. 

Item  No.  20. — Any  memoranda  or  other  material  reflecting  or  relating  to 
Ranisden  report  on  LTV  case. 

None. 

W^e  are  withholding  the  remaining  items  requested  on  the  basis  that  they  include 
confidential  summaries,  investigative  reports  and  intradepartmental  communica- 
tions. If  such  materials  are  released,  it  would  severely  inhibit  obtaining  confidential 


131 

information  and  exchange  of  ideas  and  recommendations  necessary  to  effectively 
carry  out  the  law  enforcement  policy  of  the  Department  of  Justice  and  the 
Federal  government.  This  action  is  being  taken  pursuant  to  the  long  standing 
policy  of  the  Department  not  to  produce  documents  of  this  character  unless  it 
is  shown  to  be  in  the  compelling  public  interest.  In  this  regard  we  wish  to  reiterate 
Mr.  Kleindienst's  prior  statement.  "There  is  nothing  in  the  material  that  we 
have  withheld  from  you  that  would  tend  to  prove  or  have  any  relevant  bearing 
upon  the  charge  that  there  was  any  connection  whatsoever  between  the  settlement 
of  the  ITT  antitrust  cases  and  any  payment  by  the  ITT  Corporation  to  the  City 
of  San  Diego  in  connection  with  the  Republican  Convention.  I  will  make  that 
avowal  vmder  oath  before  you  and  this  Committee  and  the  public." 
Sincerely, 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Civil  Division, 

and  Deputy  Attorney  General  Designate. 

March  24,  1972. 
Jamks  F.  Flug,  Esq. 

Chief  Counsel,  Subcommittee  on  Administrative  Practice  and  Procedure,  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 
Dkar  Jim:  Yesterday  at  approximately  3:00  p.m.,  we  received  the  latest  re- 
quest from  the  offices  of  Senators  Hart,  Kennedy,  Bayh,  Burdick,  and  Tunney  for 
the  production  of  documents. 

This  request  was  not  contained  in  a  letter  from  the  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  United  States  Senate  requesting  that  these  documents  be 
provided  for  the  use  of  the  Committee. 

Upon  receipt  of  such  a  letter,  identif.ving  the  documents  with  specificitj^,  we 
shall  respond  as  quickly  as  may  be  practicable. 
Sincerely, 

L.  Patrick   Gray  III, 
Assistant  Attorney  General, 
and  Deputy  Attorney  General-Designate. 

Department  of  Justice, 
Washington,  March  23,  1972. 
James  F.  Flug,  Esq., 

Chief  Counsel,  Subcommittee  on  Administrative  Practice  and  Procedure,  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 
Dear  Jim:  In  accordance  with  our  telephone  conversation  this  morning,  I  am 
setting  forth  my  understanding  of  our  previous  verbal  agreement  relative  to 
inquiries  to  be  made  by  staff  members  in  behalf  of  Senators  who  are  members  of 
the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  United  States  Senate,  in  connection  with  the  cur- 
rent hearing  involving  the  settlement  of  the  ITT  antitrust  case  and  the  material- 
ity of  such  settlement  to  the  confirmation  of  Richard  Gordon  Kleindienst  to  be 
Attorney  General  of  the  United  States. 

(a)  All  such  inquiries  are  to  be  directly  related  to  and  material  to  the  charge 
that  the  ITT  antitrust  cases  were  settled  in  return  for  an  agreement  on  the  part  of 
ITT  to  contribute  a  sum  of  money  to  the  City  of  San  Diego  in  support  of  its  bid 
to  host  the  Pv,epublican  National  Convention  in  the  City  of  San  Diego,  California. 

(b)  Such  inquiries  requesting  the  production  of  documents  in  possession  of  the 
Department  of  Justice  should  be  contained  in  a  letter  request  from  the  Chairman 
of  the  Judiciary  Committee  addressed  to  me,  stating  with  specificity  the  docu- 
ments desired.  The  Department  will  respond  as  quickly  as  may  be  practicable 
under  the  circumstances,  and  will  either  produce  the  document  requested,  or  state 
its  reason  for  not  producing  such  document. 

(c)  Such  inquiries  involving  an  interview  with  an  attorney  or  an  emploj^ee  of 
the  De]Dartment  of  Justice  will  be  handled  in  the  following  manner: 

1.  I  will  not  instruct  an  attorney  or  employee  of  the  Department  either  to 
consent  to  the  interview  or  refuse  the  interview.  The  granting  of  the  interview  is 
a  choice  that  the  attornej'  or  employee  is  free  to  make  unaided  b^'  any  instructions 
from  me. 

2.  I  will  be  informed,  prior  to  the  interview,  of  the  name  of  the  attorney  or 
employee  to  be  interviewed. 

3.  The  Assistant  Attorney  General  of  the  division  or  office  in  which  the  attorney 
or  emplo3^ee  is  employed,  or  his  designee,  will  be  present  at  such  interview. 


132 

You  have  requested  my  assurances  that  there  will  be  no  recriminations  against 
an  attorney  or  employee  of  the  Department  who  consents  to  an  interview  in  ac- 
cordance with  subparagraph  (c)  above.  You  have  my  assurance  that  there  will 
be  no  disciplinary  or  dismissal  action  taken  against  any  attorney  or  emploj^ee  as 
the  result  of  the  granting  of  such  an  interview  unless'  it  shall  become  apparent 
therefrom,  or  from  information  acquired  independently,  that  such  attorney  or 
employee  has  violated  laws,  orders,  regulations,  or  ethics  applicable  to  the  conduct 
of  emplo3^ees  of  the  Department  of  Justice. 

The  Department  desires  to  cooperate  fully  and  to  the  extent  permissible  under 
the  apphcable  laws,  orders  and  regulations,  and  constitutional  principles  governing 
the  conduct  of  the  business  of  the  Executive  Branch  of  the  Government. 
Sincereh", 

L.  Patrick   Gray  III, 
Assistant  Attorney  General 
and  Deputy  Attorney  General-Designate. 

April  4,  1972. 
Jamks  F.  Flug,  Esq., 

Chief  Counsel,  Subcommittee  on  Administrative  Practice  and  Procedure,  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dkar  Jim:  This  is  in  response  to  your  letters  of  April  3,  1972. 

In  a  telephone  conversation  witli  you  in  the  afternoon  of  March  23,  1972, 
following  your  receipt  of  my  letter  of  March  23,  1972,  neither  vou  nor  I  agreed 
that  the  letter  was  "totally  incorrect." 

In  that  conversation,  I  stated  to  you  that  I  intended  to  distribute  my  letter 
of  March  23,  1972  to  each  Assistant  Attorney  General  and  the  three  Associate 
Deputy  Attorneys  General,  and  I  also  said  that  distribution  may  have  already 
occurred.  I  assured  you  that  I  would  recall  the  letter  since  yf>u  and  I  apparently 
did  not  have  a  clear  understanding  of  one  provision  of  "that  letter  regarding 
the  procedure  to  be  followed  in  your  conduct  of  interviews  with  certain  Depart- 
ment employees.  Immediately  upon  the  conclusion  of  my  conversation  with  you, 
I  checked  with  my  secretary  regarding  distribution.  All  copies  were  in  my  safe 
with  the  exception  of  one.  No  others  had  been  distributed  at  that  moment  and 
no  distribution  has  occurred  since  that  time. 

I  told  you  I  had  sent  one  copy  to  vSenator  Eastland.  I  also  told  you  that  I  would 
see  the  Senator  the  next  day  and  tell  him  that  vou  did  not  agree  with  each  pro- 
vision of  my  letter  of  March  23,  1972.  I  did  see  him  and  I  did  tell  him. 

If  your  informant  will  advise  you  of  the  copy  of  the  letter  alleged  to  be  in 
circulation,  I  will  recall  that  one  unless  it  happens  to  be  the  one  "delivered  to 
Senator  Eastland.  On  March  24,  1972,  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Woodard  were  advised 
that  yt)u  and  I  were  not  in  agreement  and  regular  Department  policies  were  to  be 
followed. 

This  misunderstanding  reflected  in  our  correspondence  and  conversations  tf) 
date  is  evidence  of  the  reason  underlying  my  strong  desire  tf)  conduct  our  business 
in  accord  with  the  well  defined  policies  of  the  Department.  My  letter  of  March  24, 
1972  merely  reiterates  Department  policy. 
Sincerel}% 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 
Assistan^t  Attorney  General, 
and  Deputy  Attorney  General-Designate. 

April  7,  1972. 
Hon.  James  O.  Eastland, 
Chairman,  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Mr.  Chairman:  On  March  23,  1972,  at  approximately  3:00  p.m.,  I  re- 
ceived a  list  setting  forth  documentary  materials  desired  by  the  offices  of  Senators 
Hart,  Kennedy,  Bayh,  Burdick  and  Tunney  from  the  files  of  the  Department. 
There  was  no  indication  thereon  that  the  list  constituted  a  Committee  request. 

On  March  24,  1972,  I  addressed  a  letter  to  James  Flug,  Esq.  of  Senator  Ken- 
nedy's staff  stating  that  Department  policy  required  that  such  requests  be  made 
in  writing  over  the  signature  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee.  A  copy  of  my 
letter  is  attached. 

On  April  6,  1972,  at  approximately  5:00  p.m.,  I  was  informed  that  the  Com- 
mittee desired  to  have  the  documentarj^  materials  delivered  to  the  Committee 
not  later  than  10:30  a.m.,  April  7,  1972. 


133 

Included  on  the  list  which  I  received  at  approximately  3:00  p.m.,  March  23, 
1972,  are  repeat  requests  for  copies  of  documents  previously  furnished  to  the  Com- 
mittee in  response  to  a  direct  request  from  you.  These  are  described  on  the  March 
23,  1972  list  in  the  following  manner: 

A.  See  Item  No.  8  in  Gray's  March  17  letter  to  the  Chairman.  Notwithstanding 
Gray's  assertion  that  the  requested  document  was  "attached",  a  xerox  of  the  "file" 
copy  was  not  attached.  The  only  thiag  that  was  attached  was  a  xerox  of  some 
other  copy.  We  want  a  xerox  of  the  "tile"  copy,  also  known  as  the  "records"  copy. 
It's  the  copy  which  is  specifically  earmarked  for  the  Department's  record  or  file 
and  customarily  contains  the  initials  of  all  reviewers. 

B.  See  Item  No.  10  in  Gray's  March  17  letter  to  the  Chairman.  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  Department  is  "unable  to  locate  the  original  memorandum"  from 
McLaren  to  the  Deputy  Attorney  General,  we  need  xerox  copies  of  all  cards 
and/or  mail  slips  and/or  log  records  maintained  by  the  office  of  Messrs.  McLaren 
and  Kleindienst,  and/or  any  other  Justice  Department  offices  including  mail 
rooms,  which  would  reflect  which  offices  received,  transmitted,  and/or  were 
addressees  or  transmittees  of  the  original  memorandum. 

C.  See  Item  No.  12  in  Gray's  March  17  letter  to  the  Chairman.  Notwithstanding 
Gray's  assertion  that  the  requested  document  was  "attached",  a  xerox  of  the 
"file"  copy  was  not  attached.  The  only  thing  that  was  attached  was  a  xerox  of 
iViahaffie's  copy.  We  want  a  xerox  of  the  "file"  copy,  also  known  as  the  "records" 
copy.  It's  the  copy  which  is  specifically  earmarked  for  the  Department's  record  or 
file  and  customarily  contains  the  initials  of  all  reviewers. 

D.  See  Item  No."  13  in  Gray's  Alarch  17  letter  to  the  Chairman.  Notwithstand- 
ing Gray's  assertion  that  the  requested  document  was  "previously  supplied  to 
Committee",  the  Committee  staff  says  they  have  not  seen  it.  We  have  received  a 
xerox  of  the  "original",  but  it  appears  to  be  incomplete  in  view  of  the  excision 
marking  which  appears  near  the  upper  right-hand  corner.  We  want  a  xerox  of  the 
complete  "original." 

E.  See  Item  No.  14  in  Gray's  March  17  letter  to  the  Chairman.  Notwithstand- 
ing Grav's  assertion  that  the  requested  document  was  "previously  supplied  to 
Committee,"  the  Committee  staff  says  they  have  not  seen  it.  We  have  received  a 
xerox  of  the  "original",  which  presumably  came  from  DeMarco's  files,  but  we 
need  a  xerox  of  the  "file"  copy,  also  known  as  the  "records"  copy,  from  the  De- 
partment's files.  It's  the  copy  which  is  specifically  earmarked  for  the  Depart- 
ment's recf.rds  or  file  and  customarily  contains  the  initials  of  all  reviewers. 

H.  See  Item  No.  18  in  Gray's  March  17  letter  to  the  Chairman  reflecting  that 
the  requested  documents  were  in  the  process  of  being  obtained. 

I.  See  last  paragraph  of  Gray's  March  17  letter  to  the  Chairman  refusing  to 
provide  (1)  the  ITT  settlement' file  and  (2)  the  Department's  file  on"Coldwell, 
Banker".  The  request  for  these  files  is  reasserted  with  respect  to  all  documents,  or 
portions  thereof  regarding  which  the  President  has  not  invoked  or  is  not  prepared 
to  invoke  Executive  Privilege.  Each  document,  or  portion  thereof,  not  provided 
should  be  itemized  with  a  description  of  its  nature,  contents,  author,  addressee, 
and  date. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  copies  of  some  of  these  documents  have  previously 
been  provided  to  the  Committee  in  response  to  a  direct  request  from  you,  I  am 
pleased  to  make  the  following  report: 

A.  No  copy  was  made  for  or  sent  to  Department  "Files"  or  "Pv-ecords." 

B.  The  orginal  has  been  located  and  is  enclosed.  It  is  requested  that  a  copy  be 
made  and  the  original  be  returned  to  me. 

C.  We  cannot  locate  a  "  File"  or  "  Records"  copy. 

D.  A  xerox  copy  made  from  the  original  is  enclosed.  The  original  has  been 
returned  to  the  Departinent  of  Justice  files,  and  we  are  currently  searching  the 
files  to  obtain  the  original.  When  we  have  the  original  in  hand,  it  will  be  forwarded. 

E.  A  xerox  copy  made  from  the  original  is  enclosed.  The  original  has  been  re- 
turned to  the  Department  of  Justice  files,  and  we  are  currently  searching  the  files 
to  obtain  the  original.  When  we  have  the  original  in  hand,  it  will  be  forwarded. 

H.  Delivered  with  Department  of  Commerce  letter  of  March  23,  1972  to  the 
Chairman. 

I.  We  are  withholding  the  documents  requested  on  the  basis  that  they  include 
confidential  summaries,  investigative  reports  and  intradepartmental  communica- 
tions. If  such  materials  are  released,  it  would  severely  inhibit  obtaining  confi- 
dential information  and  exchange  of  ideas  and  recommendations  necessary  to 
effectively  carry  out  the  law  enforcement  policy  of  the  Department  of  Justice  and 
the  Federal  Government.  This  action  is  being  taken  pursuant  to  the  longstanding 
policy  of  the  Department  not  to  produce  documents  of  this,  character  unless  it  is 
shown  to  be  in  the  compelling  public  interest. 


134 

Within  seventy-two  (72)  hours  after  receipt  of  a  request  in  writing  over  your 
signature  for  documentary  materials  from  the  files  of  the  Department  of  Justice 
for  the  use  of  the  Committee,  a  reply  will  be  dispatched  to  you. 
With  my  best  wishes  and  warm  respect. 
Sincerely. 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 
Assistant  Attorney  General, 
and  Deputy  Attorney  General-Designate. 
Enclosures. 

April  7,  1972. 
Hon.  James  O.  Eastland. 
Chairman,  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Mr.  Chairman:  In  accordance  with  the  statement  made  in  my  letter 
of  April  7,  1972  to  you,  there  are  enclosed  originals  of  documentary  materials 
referred  to  in  Items  D  and  E  on  page  3  of  my  letter  to  you.  It  is  requested  that 
copies  be  made  and  the  originals  be  returned  to  me. 
With  my  best  wishes  and  warm  respect. 
Sincerely, 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 
Assistant  Attorney  General, 
and  Deputy  Attorney  General-Designate. 
Enclosures. 


April  11,  1972. 

lie   request    for    documents    involving   U.S.   Attorney   Harry   Steward  of    San 

Diego,  Calif. 
Hon.  James  O.  Eastland, 
Chairman,  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Mr.  Chairman:  On  Friday  afternoon  of  last  week,  you  caused  to  be 
delivered  to  me  a  Hst  setting  forth  seven  documents  requested  by  Senator  Tunney. 
You  requested  that  these  documents  be  made  available  to  the  Committee. 

As  you  know,  it  is  not  the  policy  of  the  Department  of  Justice  to  release  reports 
of  investigations  conducted  by  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation.  The  first 
five  items  on  the  hst  of  documents  are  constituent  parts  of  the  final  report  of 
an  investigation  conducted  by  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  and  may  not 
be  made  available. 

Items  6  and  7  on  the  list  of  documents  relate  to  internal  Justice  Department 
memoranda  involving  the  subject  matter  of  the  foregoing  final  report  of  investiga- 
tion conducted  by  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  and  may  not  be  made 
available. 

It  is  my  understanding  that  you  have  requested  that  Honorable  Henry  E. 
Petersen,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Criminal  Division,  appear  as  a  witness, 
and  that  Mr.  Petersen  will  appear  and  testify  before  the  Committee.  I  believe 
that  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Petersen  will  constitute  a  summary  of  the  final  report 
of  the  investigation  conducted  by  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation. 

With  my  best  wishes  and  warm  respect. 
Sincerely, 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 
Assistant  Attorney  General, 
and  Deputy  Attorney  General-Designate. 

April  28,   1972. 
Hon.  James  O.  Eastland, 
Chairman,  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  U.S.  Senate,  Washington,  D.C. 

Dear  Mr.  Chairman:  During  the  course  of  the  proceedings  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  April  27,  statements  were  made  concerning  our  failure  to  supply  certain 
materials  to  the  Committee.  These  materials  are  the  items  listed  under  "Addi- 
tional Materials  Requested"  in  the  list  originallv  supplied  to  me  on  March  23, 
1972. 

In  my  letter  of  April  7,  1972,  the  concluding  paragraph  was  as  follows: 

"Within  seventj^-two  (72)  hours  after  receipt  of  a  request  in  writing  over  your 
signature  for  documentary  materials  from  the  files  of  the  Department  of  Justice 
for  the  use  of  the  Committee,  a  reply  will  be  dispatched  to  you." 

We  have  not  received  such  a  request. 


135 

Nevertheless,  in  view  of  the  request  made  during  the  hearings  on  the  afternoon 
of  April  27,  1972,  I  am  pleased  to  respond  to  the  request  for  each  of  those  items 
listed  under  "Additional  Materials  Requested"  in  the  list  of  March  2o,  1972  as 
follows : 

J.  No  such  steps  have  been  taken.  It  has  been  a  policy  of  this  Department  to 
predicate  the  initiation  of  any  investigation  and  prosecution  of  allegations  of 
criminal  misconduct  made  before  a  Congressional  Committee  upon  a  referral 
of  such  Committee  to  this  Department  with  references  to  particular  instances  of 
the  alleged  misconduct  and  requests  for  prosecutive  consideration  of  those  in- 
stances. This  policy  has  been  found  necessary  in  order  for  this  Department  to 
take  full  advantage  for  prosecutive  purposes  of  the  evidence  and  knowledge 
developed  bj^  the  Committee  establishing  the  particular  facts  or  circumstances 
in  issue.  Moreover,  we  would  not  want  to  take  such  action  without  the  full  knowl- 
edge, approval,  and  official  sanction  of  the  Committee.  No  instance  readily 
comes  to  mind  in  which  the  Department  independently  examined  allegations  of 
criminal  misconduct  without  prior  referral  b\^  the  Congressional  Committee 
before  whom  the  testimony  was  taken. 

K.  None.  See  response  to  item  J. 

L.  We  respectfully  decline  to  respond  to  the  request  for  these  items  for  the 
reason  that  it  inquires  into  the  Ijasis  and  background  of  advice  and  opinions 
concerning  Department  and  Administration  policy.  Disclosure  of  such  materials 
would  make  it  difficult  in  the  future  tf)  obtain  the  necessary  exchange  of  ideas 
and  thoughts  so  essential  to  the  proper  development  of  policy. 

M.  See  response  to  item  L. 

N.  See  response  to  item  L. 

O.  See  response  to  item  L. 

P.  There  are  no  such  reports  transmitted  to  the  Attorney  General  and  were 
no  such  reports  transmitted  relating  to  the  ITT  cases. 

Q.  There  are  no  such  reports  transmitted  to  the  Deputy  Attorney  General 
and  were  no  such  reports  transmitted  relating  to  the  ITT  cases. 

R.  There  are  none,  as  indicated  in  the  responses  to  items  P  and  Q. 

S.  A  xerox  copy  made  from  the  original  is  enclosed.  It  should  be  noted  that 
these  lists  d(j  not  necessarily  include  all  visitors  to  the  Department.  The  lists  are 
maintained  by  receptionists  at  two  of  the  entrances.  Persons  having  some  form 
of  identification  as  Federal  Government  employees  and  persons  accompanying 
the  Attorney  General  and  Deputy  Attorney  General  are  not  required  to  sign  the 
list. 

T.  As  indicated  to  you  in  my  letters  of  March  17  and  April  7,  1972,  we  are 
withholding  the  documents  requested  on  the  basis  that  they  include  confidential 
summaries,  investigative  reports  and  intra-departmental  communications.  If 
such  materials  are  released,  it  w^ould  severely  inhibit  obtaining  confidential 
information  and  exchange  of  ideas  and  recommendations  necessary  to  effectively 
carry  out  the  law  enforcement  policy  of  the  Department  of  Justice  and  the 
Federal  Government.  This  action  is  being  taken  pursuant  to  the  long  standing 
policy  of  the  Department  not  to  produce  documents  of  this  character  unless  it 
it  is  shown  to  be  in  the  compelling  public  interest. 

U.  This  list  was  requested  some  time  before  the  testimony  of  Honorable 
Henry  E.  Petersen,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Criminal  Division.  As  you 
know,  Mr.  Petersen's  testimony  covered  this  matter  in  great  detail  and  constituted 
in  effect  a  summary  of  the  final  report  of  the  investigation  conducted  by  the 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation.  As  I  previously  indicated  to  you  in  my  letter 
of  April  11,  it  is  not  the  policy  of  the  Department  of  Justice  to  release  reports 
of  investigations  conducted  by  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  nor  in- 
ternal Justice  Department  memoranda  involving  the  subject  matter  of  such 
investigations. 

V.  See  response  to  item  U. 

With  my  best  wishes  and  warm  respect. 
Sincerely, 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III, 
Assistant  Attorney  General, 
and  Deputy  Attorney  General-Designate. 

Enclosure. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  you  a^Yal•e  of  transmission  by  the  chairman  on 
March  10,  1972,  of  the  Dita  Beard  memorandum  to  the  FBI  through 
the  Justice  Department? 


136 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know  that  I  was  aware  that  the  chairman 
transmitted  it.  I  was  aware  that  it  was  there  but  I  do  not  know  how 
I  was  aware  of  that.  I  cannot  recalL 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  you  aware  of  the  transmission — there  were  two 
transmissions,  one  on  INIarch  10  and  one  on  March  16 — through  the 
Justice  Department  to  the  FBI?  Were  you  aware  of  either  of  these? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  going  to  ask  if  I  might  provide  that  answer  for  the 
record  because  I  am  not  at  all  certain.  I  will  have  to  look  at  the  cor- 
respondence and  refresh  my  recollection  and  then  answer  3^ou,  Senator 
Byrd,  for  the  record. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

My  jaersonal  recollection  is  that  there  were  two  transmittals  of  the  Dita  Beard 
memorandum  to  the  FBI.  The  first  one  occurred  on  March  10,  1972  and  the  second 
was  on  March  15,  1972.  Upon  checking  internally  within  the  FBI,  I  am  now  aware 
of  three  transmittals  of  the  Dita  Beard  memorandum  to  the  FBI,  the  two  men- 
tioned above  and  a  third  one  occurring  on  March  17,  1972. 

Senator  Byrd.  Until  it  was  returned  to  the  Judiciar}^  Committee 
was  the  Beard  memorandinn  at  any  time  in  the  hands  of  anyone  other 
than  the  Justice  Department  courier  or  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  I  believe  it  was  because  I  believe  that  sometime 
during  that  period  of  time  that  memorandum  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
counsel  to  the  President. 

Senator  Byrd.  Referring  again 

Mr.  Gray.  But  I  do  not  know  how  it  got  there.  I  would  have  to 
check  the  record  to  be  certain  how  it  got  there,  but  I  believe  this  is  a 
correct  statement. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record:) 

Upon  checking  the  record  I  found  that  the  Dita  Beard  memorandum  was  made 
available  to  Mr.  Dean,  the  counsel  to  the  President,  by  me. 

Senator  Byrd.  Would  you  also  indicate  for  the  record,  whether  the 
memorandum  of  transmittal  was  directed  to  the  FBI  by  the  Justice 
Department? 

Mr.  Gray.  Would  I  indicate  that  for  the  record? 

Senator  Byrd.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  I  would. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documenc  for  the 
record :) 

Upon  checking  the  record  I  found  there  was  no  memorandum  of  transmittal 
of  the  Dita  Beard  memorandum  directed  to  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation 
b}"  the  Justice  Department. 

Senator  Byrd.  Referring  again  to  the  interview  between  Mr.  Hunt 
and  Dita  Beard,  did  the  FBI  question  Mr.  Colson  as  to  the  purpose 
of  that  interview"? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  believe  that  we  did.  I  do  not  believe — you 
mean,  at  the  time  of  the  ITT  or  the  Watergate  investigation,  Senator, 
which  one  are  3*ou  referring  to? 

Senator  Byrd.  Well,  if  you  were  aware  at  the  time  of  the 

Mr.  Gray.  I  have  no  present  recollection  of  it  and  I  am  going  to 
have  to  refresh  my  recollection  but  I  want  to  know  which  time  30U 
are  talking  about,  either  the  ITT 

Senator  Byrd.  Well,  in  either  case. 


137 

Mr.  Gray.  All  right,  in  either  case,  we  will  furnish  that  information. 
(Mr.    Gray  subsequently  submitted   the  following  document  for 
the  record:) 

After  checking  the  record,  I  find  that  we  did  not  question  Mr.  Colson  as  to 
the  purpose  of  Mr.  Hunt's  trip  to  Denver,  Colorado,  since  there  was  no  apparent 
connection  between  that  trip  and  the  Watergate  investigation  and  we  were  not 
investigating  the  ITT  matter. 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Colson,  according  to  the  Washington  Post, 
Februar}^  21,  1973,  Special  Counsel  to  President  Nixon,  said: 

Watergate  bugging  figure  sent  Howard  Hunt  to  Denver  last  March  to  inter- 
view ITT  lobbjdst  Dita  Beard,  according  to  Colson's  own  sworn  testimon.v. 
Sources  close  to  the  Watergate  investigation  said  Colson's  testimony  was  given 
in  a  secret  deposition  to  Federal  investigators  during  the  Watergate  probe  last 
year. 

Mr.  Gray.  Was  that  a  deposition  for  the  grand  jury? 
Senator  Byrd.  I  am  reading  from  the  paper: 

*  *  *  was  given  in  a  secret  deposition  to  Federal  investigators  during  the 
Watergate  probe  last  year.  The  Federal  investigators  did  not  ask  Colson  the 
purpose  of  the  interview. 

1  am  asking  you  whether  or  not  the  FBI  questioned  ]\Ir.  Colson 
as  to  the  purpose  of  that  interview. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know  1  even  knew  about  that  interview  because 
1  think  what  j^ou  are  referring  to.  Senator  Byrd,  is  a  deposition  for 
the  grand  jury  and  we  do  not  have  access  to  that.  Those  proceedings 
are  secret  until  Judge  Sirica  releases  them.  We  do  not  have  access 
to  them  but  I  will  furnish  to  the  committee  the  information  that  we 
are  able  to  obtam. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for 
the  record :) 

As  I  indicated  previoush*,  Senator,  when  our  Agents  interviewed  Mr.  Colson 
on  August  29,  1972,  concerning  Mr.  Hunt's  travel,  Mr.  Colson  said  one  trip 
which  he  authorized  Mr.  Hunt  to  make  was  to  Denver,  Colorado,  in  connection 
with  the  ITT  matter.  Our  Agents  did  not  question  Mr.  Colson  about  that  trip 
further  since  there  was  no  involvement  of  the  ITT  case  with  the  Watergate 
bugging.  We  do  not  know  what  questions  were  posed  to  Mr.  Colson  b.y  the 
Assistant  U.S.  Attorneys  who  took  a  sworn  deposition  from  him  as  that  deposition 
was  for  grand  jury  purposes. 

Senator  Byrd.  What  you  are  saying  is  that  Federal  investigators 
maj^  not  have  been  FBI  investigators,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  because  I  think  that  what  is  being 
referred  to  there  is  the  actions  of  the  assistant  U.S.  attorney  in  making 
his  deposition  for  presentation  to  the  Federal  grand  jury. 

Senator  Byrd.  Would  not  the  FBI  think  it  important  to  know 
how  and  wh}^  Mr.  Hunt  was  tied  into  both  the  ITT  case  and  the 
Watergate  case? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know  that  the  thought  ever  crossed  our  minds. 

Senator  Byrd.  Wh}^  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  I  just  do  not  know  that  it  did  or  it  did  not,  I 
am  going  to  have  to 

Senator  Byrd.  It  has  crossed  my  mind. 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  1  did  not  know,  you  know,  I  did  not  relate  that 
way  at  all,  because  I  did  not  know  at  the  time  that  Howard  Hunt — 
you  are  reading  from  a  deposition  from  a  grand  jury  apparently, 
that  the  Washington  Post  got  hold  of.  I  have  not  had  access  to  that 
deposition. 


138 

Senator  Byrd.  What  I  am  sajdng  is  this,  you  were  in  the  role  of 
decisionmaker  at  the  time  the  Judiciary  Committee  was  considering: 
the  nomination  of  Mr.  Kleindienst. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right,  and  I  did  not  know  it  at  that  time. 

Senator  Byrd.  At  the  time  apparently  Mr.  Colson  sent  Mr,  Hunt 
out  to  Denver  to  interview  Dita  Beard. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not  know  that  at  the  time. 

Senator  Byrd.  This  is  why  I  am  asking  whether  or  not  j^ou  knew 
of  this. 

Mr.  Gray.  At  that  time  Avhen  I  was 

Senator  Byrd.  Back 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  no;  1  did  not  know  that. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  would  it  not  be  important  now  to  know  whether 
or  not  ISIr.  Hunt  was  connected  with  both  of  these  cases? 

Mr.  Gray.  1  do  not  know.  1  am  going  to  have  to  review  on  that 
because  1  cannot  really  see  the  tie-in  of  Dita  Beard  and  Watergate. 
1  am  having  trouble  making  that  tie-in. 

Senator  Byrd.  The  tie-in  is  Mr.  Hunt,  No.  1,  and  Mr.  Colson, 
No.  2,  of  the  White  House.  Mr.  Hunt  was  emplo^'ed  by  Mr.  Colson, 
on  the  recommendation  of  Mr.  Colson,  and  worked  for  the  White 
House. 

Mr.  Gray.  1  am  going  to  have  to  see  it  and  furnish  it  for  the 
record,  because  at  the  time  of  the  ITT  thing  when  I  was  making 
those  decisions  regarding  documents  I  had  no  idea  that  Mr.  Hunt 
went  to  Denver  to  interview  Dita  Beard. 

(Mr.  Gray  subseciuently  submitted  the  following  document  for 
the  record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  After  carefully  reviewing  this  matter  in  my  mind,  Senator  Byrd, 
I  must  again  respectfully  state  to  you  that  at  the  time  of  the  ITT  matter  involving 
Mrs.  Dita  Beard,  I  had  no  knowledge  of  Mr.  Hunt  or  that  he  had  been  sent  to 
Colorado  concerning  the  ITT  matter.  We  learned  of  this  trip  on  August  29,  1972, 
from  Mr.  Colson.  The  Special  Agents  handling  the  Watergate  case  could  see  no 
relationship  between  Mr.  Hunt's  trip  and  the  Watergate  case  and  I  still  can  see 
no  connection. 

Senator  Byrd.  So,  30U  did  not  know  Mr.  Hunt  and  you  did  not 
know  about  the  trip? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  the  FBI  ever  question  Alfred  C.  Baldwin? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  we  did. 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Baldwin  was  an  ex-FBI  agent  and  an  alleged 
participant  in  the  Watergate  bugging  case. 

Did  the  FBI  question  Mr.  William  E.  Timmons,  Assistant  to  the 
President  for  Congressional  Relations? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  believe  we  did.  I  have  already  said,  Senator  Bj^rd, 
that  we  will  make  available,  for  the  record,  the  list  of  the  witnesses 
or  list  of  the  individuals  that  we  interviewed  at  the  White  House  and 
the  Committee  to  Re-elect  the  President.  Let  me  see  if  I  cannot  find 
that  right  here,  who  is  it,  Timmons? 

Senator  Byrd.  Perha])s  I  should  preface  my  cj[uestion  by  saying 
that,  quoting  from  the  Congressional  Quarterly, 

The  Washington  Post  reported  that  Baldwin  told  the  FBI  that  memos  de- 
scribing wire  taps  and  bugged  conversations  with  in  the  Democratic  headquarters 
were  sent  to  William  E.  Timmons,  Assistant  to  the  President  for  Congressional 
Relations,  RoVjert  C.  Odle,  Jr.,  a  former  White  House  aide,  who  is  now  Director 


139 

of  Administration  for  the  Committee  for  the  Re-Election  of  the  President,  and 
J.  Glen  Sedam,  Jr.,  who  is  Counsel  for  the  Re-Election  Committee.  The  charges 
were  denied. 

}^Ir.  Gray.  Yes;  and  I  think  that  certain!}'-  is  not  in  accord  with 
what  Baldwin  has  given  us  and  I  do  not  know  what  Baldwin  has 
given  the  grand  jury.  Baldwin  merel}^  said  to  us  that  he  observed 
memoranda  being  t3^ped  b}-  McCord  to  Odle  and  to  Tiinmons  but  he 
could  not  state  that  these  related  to  his  monitoring  activities. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  the  FBI  question  Mr.  Timmons  or  Mr.  Odle  or 
Mr.  Sedam? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  we  did.  We  questioned  Mr.  Odle  quite  a  bit. 
We  questioned  ^Ir.  Timmons  on  September  8,  1972,  and  Mr.  Odle — 
let  me  see  if  I  can  find  it  here — we  questioned  him  on  the  19th  of 
June,  the  20th  of  June,  23d  of  June,  28th  of  June,  29th  of  June,  and 
the  nth  of  July. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  Mr.  Sedam  questioned? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes.  Mr.  Sedam  was  questioned  on  the  23d  of  June, 
the  26th  of  June,  the  18th  of  July,  the  26th  of  July. 

Senator  Byrd.  The  Washington  Post  reported  that  Mr.  Segretti 
had  named  White  House  aide  Dwight  Cha]:)in  as  his  contact  in  si>ying 
and  sabotaging  of  the  Democrats.  Did  the  FBI  question  Mr.  Chapin? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  did  question  Mr.  Chapin,  but  that  information 
from  Mr.  Segretti,  I  believe,  comes  from  testimony  that  I  should  not 
be  alluding  to  here,  Senator. 

Senator" Byrd.  Would  it  not  be  appro])riate  then,  Mr.  Gray,  for 
you  to  supply  the  committee  with  the  Watergate  files  before  the 
committee  proceeded  any  further? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  made  the  offer,  Senator  B^^rd,  earUer,  to  the  committee, 
that  I  would  be,  and  I  offer  it.  I  made  it  in  my  statement,  I  was  not 
asked. 

Senator  Byrd.  Yes;  I  was  here  when  you  did  that. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  you  heard  it. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  I  think  that  is  very  commendable  of  you  but 
what  I  am  saying  is  it  might  be  well  for  the  committee  to  proceed  no 
further  until  the  files  are  supplied. 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  obviousl}",  I  do  not  beheve  that  suggestion  has 
merit,  Senator,  and  I  must  respectfullN"  differ  with.  you. 

Senator  Byrd.  So  that  the  committee  would  not  have  to ■ 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  here  and  I  am  prepared  to  answer  whatever  ques- 
tions I  can  answer  and  if  this  committee  has  anj^  doubt  at  the  con- 
clusion of  its  hearings  regarding  m}-  qualifications  they  should  fail  to 
report  me  out.  It  is  that  clear  to  me. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  understand  that. 

\h.  Gray.  Sure. 

Senator  Byrd.  There  will  be  debate  on  that  point.  [Laughter.] 

I  understand  the  responsibility  of  the  committee  is  as  3^ou  have 
stated  it,  and  you  stated  it  precisely.  But  so  man}^  things  need  to  be 
supplied,  I  am  just  wondering  if  the  committee  ought  not  wait  until 
it  is  so  supplied. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  think  that  many  things  need  to  be  supplied  and 
I  have  a  task  force  set  up  in  the  FBI  which  is  ready  to  work  in  tra- 
ditional FBI  fashion  and  your  answers  will  be  provided.  Senator,  to 
the  committee. 

Senator  Byrd.  Does  the  offer  of  the  Watergate  files  include  the 
administrative  files? 


140 

Mr.  Gray.  Wliat  do  you  mean  by  the  administrative  files? 

Senator  Byrd.  Buck  slips,  interdepartmental  memoranda. 

Mr.  Gray.  My  offer  this  morning  in  my  testimony,  and  I  think  the 
record  mil  show  it,  is  our  entire  file,  ever3'thing. 

Senator  Byrd.  Lock,  stock  and  barrel? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  We  are  very  proud  of  that  investigation. 

Senator  Byrd.  Does  Mr.  Ervin's  argument  with  respect  to  selected 
staff  seeing  these  files  apply  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  also? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  will  not  provide  these  files  to  selected  staff 
members.  I  have  stated  that  I  \nll  make  these  files  available  to  the 
members  of  the  committee  and  that  I  will  put  two  experienced  agents 
with  each  member  to  assist  the  member,  to  respond  to  any  questions. 
We  have  a  task  force  set  up  in  the  FBI  to  crank  out  answers  and  we 
Anil  deliver  the  product  to  the  Senators. 

Senator  Byrd.  The  Senator  from  North  Carolina  this  morning  indi- 
cated that  he  had  many  things  to  do,  and  in  view  of  that  fact  he  asked 
you  whether  or  not  it  would  be  agreeable  with  you  if  selected  staff  on 
the  Select  Committee,  which  has  been  established  here  to  investigate 
the  Watergate  incident 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  want  this  done  and  I  Anil  change  it. 
I  responded  to  a  Senate  resolution  and  the  Senator  from  North 
Carolina  was  quoting  it  to  me  and  I  said  I  was  glad  to  comply  with 
the  will  of  the  Senate  expressed  in  that  kind  of  resolution.  Senator, 
I  am  making  an  unprecedented  offer  to  this  committee. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  am  merely  asking  you  whether  or  not  that  same 
offer  applies  to  the  staff  of  the  Judiciary-  Committee? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  it  does  not. 

Senator  Byrd.  Because  we  on  the  Judiciary  Committee  are  just 
about  as  busy  as  Mr.  Ervin  is. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  appreciate  that  and  it  is  a  very  important  consideration. 

Senator  Byrd.  And  I  would  find  it  extremely  hard  myself  to  take  a 
look  at  all  of  the  raw  material  that  you  have  on  the  Watergate  case. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  but,  Senator  Byrd,  you  have  a  lot  of  questions 
there  and  your  staff  lias  apparently  helped  in  them  and  I  am  perfectly 
willing — I  told  you  I  have  a  task  force  set  up  there  to  crank  this 
out — and  we  are  willing  to  respond  to  your  cpiestions. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  your  answer  is  "No,"  mth  respect  to  selected 
staff  members  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  seeing  these  files? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Byrd.  While  at  the  same  time  selected  staff  of  the  select 
committee — — 

Mr.  Gray.  Thej''  are  two  different  situations  because  of  a  resolution 
of  the  Senate.  The  Senate  has  expressed  itself,  and  I  feel  that  this  is 
something  I  ought  to  take  a  position  on.  You  know,  I  do  not  know 
what  the  position  of  the  Attorney  General  is  going  to  be,  I  just  do 
not  know.  I  am  up  here  talking. 

Senator  Byrd.  I  am  merely  asking  you  whether  or  not  you  would 
offer  to  make  the  same  offer  to  the  Judiciary  that  you  would  make 
to  the  select  committee? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  the  FBI  question  ]Mr.  Herbert  W.  Kalmbach^ 
the  President's  personal  attorney? 

^Ir.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 


141 

Senator  Byrd.  The  files  which  you  have  offered  to  have  the  Ju- 
diciary Committee  study,  would  they  include  the  field  office  files 
on  the  Watergate? 

Mr.  Gray.  Everything  that  the  field  office  generated  we  have.  It 
all  came  in  the  teletype,  this  was  a  major  special  and  everything  came 
here. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  the  FBI  question  Mr.  Haldeman  regarding  the 
cash  fund  maintained  by  the  Committee  for  the  Re-Election  of  the 
President? 

Mr.  Gray,  The  FBI  did  not  question  Mr.  Haldeman  and  no 
lead  was  ever  sent  out  to  question  Mr.  Haldeman  and  no  recommenda- 
tion was  ever  made  to  me  to  question  Mr.  Haldeman. 

Senator  Byrd.  According  to  Congressional  Quarterly,  "In  a  Wash- 
ington television  interview  Mr.  McGregor  acknowledged  the  existence 
of  a  cash  fund  maintained  by  the  President's  Re-Election  Committee. 
He  said  no  part  of  the  fund,  no  money  from  the  fund,  had  been  used 
for  illegal  purposes  and  he  repeated  a  denial  that  H.  R.  Haldeman  had 
authority  to  approve  payments  from  the  fund." 

You  do  not  think  it  would  be  worthwhile  to  question  Mr.  Halde- 
man? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  because  we  in  our  interviews  and  our  total 
investigation  had  no  indication  that  Mr.  Haldeman  was  involved. 

Senator  Byrd.  Have  you  had  indications  that  other  individuals  who 
were  connected  with  the  Committee  for  the  Re-Election  of  the 
President  were  involved? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  sorr^^  We  interviewed  those  for  whom  the  leads 
were  sent  out. 

Senator  Byrd.  Wh}^  would  it  not  be  a])propriate  to  tr}-  to  determine 
who  authorized  the  payment  from  the  fund? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  think  we  did  determine  who  authorized  the  paj^ment 
from  the  fund. 

Senator  Byrd.  Wlio  was  it? 

]Mr.  Gray.  We  feel  that,  from  the  interviews  we  got,  that  Jeb 
Magruder  was  the  individuaLAvho  allocated  $250,000. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  jou  go  beyond  Mr.  Magruder? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  talked  to  other  people,  the  assistant  U.S.  attorne^^s 
did,  and  the  grand  jury  did,  but  I  do  not  have  access  to  the  grand 
iurv  testimonv. 

vSenator  Byrd.  Was  information  obtained  from  the  national  security 
wiretaps  given  to  Mr.  Hunt  and/or  to  Mr.  Lidd}^  while  thej'  were 
working  at  the  "^^^lite  House? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  sorry,  Senator  Byrd,  I  missed  the  first  part  of  that 
question. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  information  obtained  from,  national  security 
wiretaps  insofar  as  you  know,  in  connection  with  the  FBI  wiretaps 
given  to  Mr.  Hunt  and/or  JNIr.  Lidd}^  '\\'hile  they  were  working  at  the 
^Vliite  House? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  know,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  did  the  FBI  question  Mr.  Lidd}^? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  did  not  get  to  question  Mr.  Lidd}^  because  he  is  one 
of  the  defendants  and  he  would  not  talk  to  us. 

Senator  Byrd.  The  FBI  did  not  question  Mr.  Liddy? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir.  We  would  have  been  happy  to  talk  to  any  one 
of  those  men,  sort  of  hinted  we  would,  but  we  never  were  successfuL 

91-331—73 10 


142 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  the  FBI  question  Mr.  Sloan? 

Mr.  Gray.  Hugh  Sloan? 

Senator  Byrd.  Hugh  Sloan,  Jr. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  When? 

Mr.  Gray.  Hugh  Sloan,  Jr.,  former  treasurer  of  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee, CRP,  Julv  17,  1972. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  the  FBI  question  Tom  Gregory,  the  college 
student  engaged  by  Hunt  to  spy  on  Democratic  presidential  candi- 
dates? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes.  sir;  we  did. 

Senator  Byrd.  When? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  do  not  have  that  date  but  I  can  furnish  it  for  the 
record.  It  was  late  in  the  year,  though. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsecjuently  submitted  the  following  document  for 
the  record:) 

Mr.  Gray.  Our  records  show,  Senator,  that  Mr.  Gregory  was  interviewed  on 
December  19  and  20,  1972. 

Senator  Byrd.  Wln^  do  you  sup])ose  it  would  be  late  in  the  3'ear? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  know  exactl}^  why  it  was  late  in  the  year  because  of 
the  fact  that,  of  all  the  some  2,200  telephone  calls  that  we  had  access 
to,  his  was  one  of  those  that  was  not  run  down  early  in  the  game. 
There  Avas  no  other  reason  for  it.  I  asked  the  same  question  of  ni}^ 
agents  and  that  is  the  answer  they  gave  me. 

Senator  Byrd.  Was  the  FBI  aware,  before  the  Watergate  trial,  of 
the  $199,000  i)ayment  to  Mr.  Liddy  by  the  deputy  director  of  the 
Committee  to  Re-Elect  the  President,  Jeb  Magruder? 

Mr.  Gray.  Were  we  aware  of  it  before  the  Watergate  trial? 

Senator  Byrd.   Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  I  will  have  to  check  that.  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  is — you  see,  I  have  access  to  some  grand  jury  testimony  but  not  all 
of  it.  But  I  am  ver^-  reluctant  even  to  discuss  grand  jury  testimoii}^ 
because  of  the  Federal  rules  of  criminal  procedure  and  I  will  ascertain 
from  our  records  whether  we  had  it  through  our  interviews  or  whether 
it  was  grand  jury.  If  it  was  grand  jury  and  we  have  it,  I  will  so  identif}^ 
it  to  the  committee. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  After  checking  the  records,  Senator  Byrd,  I  note  that  the  $199,000 
paj'ment  was  not  made  by  Mr.  Jeb  Magruder.  Payment  of  money  to  Mr.  Liddy 
was  authorized  by  jNIr.  Magruder  and  Mr.  Sloan  made  the  actual  disbursements. 
The  information  about  sums  of  money  furnished  Mr.  Liddy  developed  in  grand 
jury  testimony  and,  as  I  mentioned  previously,  I  do  not  believe  I  should  discuss 
grand  jury  proceedings. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  Judge  Sirica  interrogated  Mr.  Sloan,  Mr.  Sloan 
testified  that  the  authority  for  the  payment  to  Mr.  Liddy  b}^  Magruder 
had  been  verified  b}'  Maurice  Stans,  the  chief  fundraiser  for  the  Com- 
mittee To  Re-Elect  the  President,  and  checked  out  w4th  Mr.  Mitchell, 
the  committee  chairman.  Did  the  FBI  pursue  this  lead? 

Mr.  Gray.  Both  of  those  men — I  should  not  say  both,  it  may  not  be 
a  complete  answer.  But  that  point  was  covered,  denials  were  given  to 
us,  I  am  sure,  and  I  will  actuall}'^  check  the  interviews  and  get  the  exact 
information  that  we  received. 


143 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

After  checking  the  record  I  find  that  Mr.  Stans  was  interviewed  bj-  the  FBI  four 
times:  Twice  on  July  14,  1972  and  on  July  5  and  28,  1972.  On  the  last  date  he 
stated : 

He  had  no  hand  in  political  policj'  making  decisions  and  that  he  would  receive 
information  from  Jeb  Alagruder  that  certain  funds  would  have  to  be  paid  out  for 
various  expenses  at  which  time  he  would  notif,y  Mr.  Sloan  to  make  these  funds 
available  so  normal  operating  expenses  could  be  paid  for. 

Stans  became  aware  from  general  conversations  that  Liddy  was  assigned  a 
"Security  Gathering"  job  and  that  certain  cash  disbursements  would  have  to  be 
made  available  to  Liddy.  Liddy's  "program"  was  already  in  effect  prior  to  Stans' 
arrival  on  duty  with  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President  and  Stans  was  not 
aware  of  any  details  concerning  Liddy's  "program."  The  only  time  Sloan  ever 
mentioned  cash  disbursements  to  Stans  was  when  Sloan  told  Stans  that  Liddy 
wanted  to  make  a  large  cash  withdrawal  (date  and  amount  not  mentioned). 
Stans  referred  Sloan  to  Magrudcr. 

Mr.  Mitchell  when  interviewed  by  the  FBI  on  Jul.y  5,  1972,  advised  he  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  financial  aspect  of  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President 
which  was  handled  completely  by  Maurice  Stans. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  you  ever  discuss  any  matter  relating  to  the 
investigation  of  the  Watergate  aifak  with  anyone  on  the  Committee 
to  Re-Elect  the  President?" 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  With  Mr.  John  Mitchell? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  Or  with  anyone  from  the  White  House? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Byrd.  Who? 

Mr.  Gray.  John  Wesley  Dean,  Counsel  to  the  President,  and  I 
think  on  maybe  a  half  dozen  occasions  with  John  Ehrlichman. 

Senator  Byrd.  Were  any  members  of  the  Committee  to  Re-Elect 
the  President  questioned  about  Mr.  McCord  or  Mr.  Liddy? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  thej^  were  questioned.  They  w^ere  asked. 

wSenator  Byrd.  I  onl}^  have  about  three  or  four  more  questions,  and 
I  appreciate  your  patience  and  I  certainl}^  appreciate  the  indulgence 
of  my  committee  colleagues. 

When  did  you  first  learn  of  the  FBI's  entrance  to  the  Les  Whitten 
case? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  have  to  check  the  exact  date  but  it  could  have 
come  to  me  once  again  through  the  teletypes  as  they  come  across  my 
desk  and  in  discussions  with  the  Actmg  Associate  Director,  Mr.  Felt. 

Senator  Byrd.  All  right.  If  you  will  indicate  that  and  also  indicate 
from  whom  you  first  learned  of  it,  would  you,  please? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

UiJon  reviewing  our  records,  I  learned  on  1/24/73,  from  information  contained 
in  a  teletype  from  our  Washington  Field  Office  that  a  Metropolitan  Police  De- 
partment officer  working  in  an  undercover  capacitj"  had  advised  his  superiors  that 
he  had  heard  that  Anita  Collins  and  Hank  Adams  had  been  conferring  with  Jack 
Anderson  to  buy  documents  stolen  from  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs.  This 
teletype  made  reference  to  Jack  Anderson's  column  which  appeared  in  the  Wash- 
ington Post  on  12/11/72,  wherein  he  reported  that  his  associate,  Les  Whitten, 
had  seen  many  thousands  of  the  documents  taken  from  the  Bureau  of  Indian 
Affairs  Building.  On  the  morning  of  January  31,  1973,  Associate  Director  W. 
Mark  Felt  informed  me  of  the  appearance  of  Les  Whitten's  automobile  at  the 
residence  of  Hank  Adams  and  of  his  arrest  shortly  thereafter. 


144 

Senator  Byrd.  Do  you  think  that  the  case  was  properly  handled 
against  Mr.  Wliitten  by  the  FBI  agent? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  I  do.  On  the  basis  of  the  information  that  we 
have  and  on  the  authorization  to  arrest  that  we  have  from  the  assistant 
U.S.  attorney. 

Senator  Byrd.  Did  you  specifically  authorize  the  actions  taken  by 
the  agent? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  that  is  a  detail  that  I  would  not  get  that  far  into. 

Senator  Byrd.  When  will  you  sujjply  the  information  I  have  re- 
quested that  you  said  you  would  suppl3-,  Mr.  Gray? 

Mr.  Gray.  When  would  I  suppW  it,  sir? 

Senator  Byrd.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  Within  48  hours. 

wSenator  Byrd.  I  have  one  final  question.  You  indicated  that  the 
FBI  did  not  follow  up  political  leads. 

Mr.  Gray.  We  did  not  ev^en — there  were  none  even  set  out  that 
led  into  the,  as  the  Supreme  Court  sometimes  says,  political  thicket. 
We  did  not  get  into  that  at  all,  and  we  looked  at  those  statutes — 
even  when  we  got  the  first  interview  from  Segretti,  Ave  looked  at  those 
statutes  to  see.  We  did  not,  j^ou  know,  just  ignore  it.  It  was  considered. 

Senator  Byrd.  But  you  knew  that  Mr.  McCord  was  involved  in  the 
Committee  for  the  Re-Election  of  the  President  when  he  was  arrested? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  knew  that  at  3:45  p.m.,  Pacific  Davlight  Time,  on 
the  17th. 

wSenator  Byrd.  If  you  did  not  follow  political  leads  how  could  you 
attempt  to  find  out  if  CREEP  was  involved? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  once  we  knew  w^ho  Mr.  McCord  was  we  found  out 
where  he  was  employed.  He  was  caught  in  a  very  compromising 
situation.  He  was  a  strong  suspect  of  havmg  committed  a  criminal 
offense. 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  thank  you. 

I  have  no  more  questions  at  this  time  and  I  thank  you,  Mr.  Gray. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  j'^ou,  Senator  BATd. 

Senator  Hart.  Thank  3"ou,  Senator. 

Mr.  Gray,  Senator  Tunney,  in  view  of  the  hour 

Senator  Tunney.  I  \vi\\  wait  until  tomorrow. 

Senator  Hart.  The  Chairman  indicated  that  we  will  adjourn  until 
10:30  tomorrow  morning. 

Ma}^  I  ask,  before  we  leave,  which  reflects  that  I  am  bothered  by 
your  inability  to  respond  yes  or  no  to  the  question  of  whether  Segretti 
was  shown  FBI  reports  at  the  Republican  Convention,  you  just  told 
Senator  B^^rd  that  Segretti  had  been  interviewed.  Now,  did  you  ask, 
did  the  agent  ask  Segretti  who  showed  him  the  FBI  report? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  interviewed  him.  Senator,  on  the  26th  of  June  and 
he  was  before  the  grand  jury  in  the  latter  part  of  August  and  I  do  not 
know  what  the  assistant  U.S.  attorneys  asked  him  before  the  grand 
jurv. 

Senator  Hart.  Well,  that  was  not  ni}"  question.  What  did  the 
Bureau  ask  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  we  did  not  go  ask  Segretti 

Senator  Hart.  Why  I  am  bothered  is  that  it  was  a  leadpipe  criminal 
action  alleged  in  the  news  and  it  alerted  you  to  call  Dean  m  the  White 
House  but  nothing  be^^ond  that. 


145 

Mr.  Gra^.  No,  sir;  I  made  the  decision,  and  I  did  not  go  beyond  it 
because  I  saw  no  reason  to  go  beyond  it. 

Senator  Hart.  I  was  sent  a  note  here  that  I  cannot  read,  I  think  it 
has  to  do  with  materials,  vnth  supplying  materials. 

When  you  supply  materials,  which  I  assume  in  the  course  of  the 
day  have  been  asked  for,  and  vou  have  indicated 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  I  have  answered  several  times. 

Senator  Hart.  When  you  supply  the  materials  could  3"ou  do  so  in 
cojiies  so  that  each  member  would  have  them? 

Mr.  Gray.  You  mean,  in  response  to  questions,  is  that  correct,  j^ou 
mean,  questions  asked? 

Senator  Hart.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  And  to  which  I  said  I  will  respond  and  supply  the 
material? 

Senator  Hart.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  we  can  do  that. 

Senator  Hart.  And  if  the  captions  on  the  materials  that  you  give 
us  are  not  informative  would  you  ask  your  staff  to  identify  the  page 
in  our  transcript  where  the  request  has  been  made  which  produces 
that  document? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir.  But  to  do  that  we  are  going  to  have  to  have 
the  transcript  and  this  may  change  my  48-hour  promise,  my  48- 
hour  commitment  to  Senator  Byrd.  I  have  someone  here  making 
notes  of  the  commitments  that  I  am  making  so  that  we  can  begin 
to  go  to  work  on  it,  but  if  it  is  desired  that  they  be  related  to  a  page  in 
the  transcript  then  I  am  going  to  have  to  request  that  I  be  permitted 
to  have  the  transcript  and  then  go  48  hours  from  the  time  of  receipt 
of  the  transcript. 

Senator  Hart.  I  would  not  want  to  trim  back  your  commitment 
to  Senator  Byrd. 

Senator  Byrd.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  Mr.  Gray  should  have 
the  transcript  and  I  think  the  committee  ought  to  have  the  informa- 
tion that  is  being  requested  so  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  the  48  hours 
is  off. 

Mr.  Gray.  All  right,  sh. 

Senator  Hart.  Thank  you.  Mr.  Gray,  you  have  had  a  long  day, 
I  know. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you.  I  liave  enjoyed  every  minute  of  it. 

(Whereupon,  at  6:30  p.m.,  the  liearine:  was  recessed,  to  reconvene 
at  10:30  a.m.,  Thmvday,  March  1,  1973^.) 


NOMINATION  OF  LOUIS  PATRICK  GRAY  III 


THURSDAY,   MARCH   1,    1973 

U.S.  Senate, 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  B.C. 

The  committee  met,  pursuant  to  recess,  at  10:35  a.m.,  in  room  1202, 
Dirksen  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  James  O.  Eastland  (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present:  Senators  Eastland,  Kennedy,  Bayh,  Burdick,  Tunney, 
Hruska,  Fong,  Mathias.  and  Gurney. 

Also  present:  John  H.  Holloman,  chief  counsel,  and  Francis  C. 
Rosenberger,  Peter  Stockett,  and  Thomas  D.  Hart,  professional  staff 
members. 

Tiie  Chairman.  Let  us  have  order. 

Senator  Tunne}^ 

Senator  Tunney.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Gray,  I  want  to  congratulate  you,  as  others  have,  for  having 
been  nominated  b}^  the  President  to  perform  the  awesome  responsi- 
bility of  being  the  Director  of  the  FBI.  I  personally  feel  that  there 
is  no  agency  in  Government  that  is  more  sensitive  to  a  democracy, 
one  that  can  protect  our  democratic  institutions,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  if  it  is  in  the  wrong  hands,  could  do  more  to  undermine  our 
democratic  institutions.  I  think  we  have  been  very  lucky  in  this 
countr}^  to  have  had  a  man  of  the  stature  of  J.  Edgar  Hoover  who 
completel}^  depoliticized  the  FBI.  I  think  if  we  all  look  back  in  history 
and  see  what  the  state  of  the  Bureau  of  Investigation  of  the  Justice 
Department  was  like,  under  a  corrupt  Attorne}^  General,  J.  Edgar 
Hoover  did  represent  a  breath  of  fresh  air.  I  would  certain!}'  hope 
that  his  successor  ^nll  follow  in  that  tradition. 

Now,  I  would  like  to  ask  3'ou  a  few  questions  that  relate  to  your 
political  activities,  or  lack  thereof.  I  would  then  like  to  get  into  some 
structural  questions  with  respect  to  tne  FBI  itself,  such  things  as  the 
way  you  define  organized  crime,  procedures  that  you  followed,  sur- 
veillance, keepirg  of  records,  et  cetera. 

With  res])ect  to  the  matters  that  were  brought  up  yesterda}^  b}^ 
Senator  Hart  relating  to  Mr.  Segretti,  I  coiddn't  hel])  but  feel  that  in 
answering  Senator  Hart's  questions  you  were  sa3dng  that  there  was  a 
significant  violation  of  security  if,  in  fact,  the  newspaper  articles, 
stating  that  Mr.  Segretti  had  access  to  an  FBI  ?Ae  prior  to  his  being 
questioned  by  the  grand  juiy,  were  true. 

Is  that  correct,  is  my  impression  of  your  answer  correct? 

TESTIMONY  OF  LOUIS  PATRICK  GRAY  III— Resumed 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  don't  think  that  I  categorized  it  in  quite  that 
language,  Senator.  I   categorized   it,  I   believe,  as  I   recollect,  as  a 

(147) 


148 

breach  of  trust  or  a  breach  of  duty  to  the  Chief  Executive  of  the  Na- 
tion, if  this,  in  fact,  occurred. 

Senator  Tunney.  If  that  occurred? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  That  is  right,  if  this  in  fact  occurred. 

I  think  we  also  have  to  keep  in  mind,  iSenator,  and  once  again  I 
don't  have  the  newspaper  article  in  front  of  me  and  I  am  not  exactly 
sure  of  the  verbatim  allegations  and  I  ahvavs  like  to  be  sure  of  verbatim 
allegations  so  that  one  can  respond  accurately  as  well  as  adequately, 
but  assume,  let  us  assume  for  the  moment  that  this  person  Segretti 
was  briefed  by  someone  on  his  interview  with  the  FBI.  He  is  being 
briefed  on  what  he  said  to  the  FBI  anyhow,  so  I  don't  know  how  we 
get  a  violation  of  law  in  there.  No  question  about  it  in  my  mind, 
certainly  there  is  a  breach  of  trust  here. 

Senator  Tunney.  Would  it  be  appropriate  under  an}^  circumstances 
for  auA^one  to  take  an  FBI  file  which  was  given  to  them  in  confidence 
for  their  eyes  onh^  and  turn  it  over  to  a  third  party,  one  who  was  a 
subject  of  the  investigation?  Under  any  circumstances  would  that  be 
justified? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  first.  Senator,  Segretti  was  not  a  subject  of  an  in- 
vestigation. He  was  one  of  the  man}^  people  who  were  being  interviewed 
in  connection  ^vdth  the  Watergate.  But  to  answer  you  specifically,  you 
know,  I  think  you  are  as  aware  as  I  am  that  one  of  the  most  difficult 
tasks  faced  by  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  is  to  maintain  the 
integrity  of  its  files.  I  think  that  one  coming  lawfully  into  possession 
of  an  FBI  document  and  then  disseminating  it,  making  it  known  to 
others  not  authorized  to  see  those  documents  does,  indeed  'commit  a 
serious  breach  of  trust.  That  is  the  individual  who  comes  into  posses- 
sion of  it  lawfully.  On  our  documents  we  have  all  kmds  of  warning 
language,  and  I,  since  coming  into  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investiga- 
tion, have  been  looking  into  our  dissemination  procedures  because  I 
feel  that  it  is  indeed  happening  to  us,  either  through  deliberate  at- 
tempt, through  carelessness,  or  through  neglect. 

The  very  fiber  of  our  being  is  to  be  found  in  our  files,  and  those  files 
are  sacred  so  far  as  we  are  concerned.  But  we  are  plagued  with  this 
problem  and  we  have  been  plagued  with  this  problem  for  as  long  as 
the  FBI  has  existed. 

Senator  Tunney.  You  see,  that  is  the  problem  that  I  have  with  this 
particular  case.  Did  a'ou  s])eak  to  the  Attorney  General  about  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  did  not. 

Senator  Tunney.  Did  you  con] plain? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  did  not. 

Senator  Tunney.  Did  you  complain  to  the  President  about  it? 

^Ir.  Gray.  No;  I  did  not.  It  is  not  a  thing  that  I  would  take  to  the 
Attorney  General  or  to  the  President. 

Senator  Tunney.  Well,  I  believe  that  you  testified  yesterday  that 
as  you  perceived  your  responsibilities  as  Director  of  the  FBI,  you 
re]:»ort  to  the  Attorney  General? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  isVight. 

Senator  Tunney.  x4.nd  you  report  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Tunney.  And  anything  that  you  have  available  to  3-ou 
should  be  made  available  to  them? 


149 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct.  But  I  have  a  judgment,  too,  you  know. 
They  are  not  gomg  to  let  me  sit  in  that  position.  Senator,  if  I  go 
running  Avith  every  item  over  to  them. 

Senator  Tunney.  I  understand  that. 

Now,  insofar  as  presidential  surrogates  are  concerned,  do  you  have 
a  responsibilit}^,  as  you  perceive  it,  to  make  available  FBI  investiga- 
tive reports  to  White  House  assistants? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  about — you  are  using  surrogates  now  and 
White  House  assistants.  Who  are  we  talking  about?  Are  we  talking 
about  those  people  who  went  out  on  campaign  trails? 

Senator  Tunney.  No. 

Mr.  Gray.  Are  we  talking  of  men  like  Mr.  Dean  and  Mr.  Haldeman 
and  Mr.  Ehrlichman? 

Senator  Tunney.  I  am  talking  about  men  who  work  in  the  White 
House. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  not  going  to  make  those  available  to  everybody 
who  works  in  the  White  House  but  if  jon  are  talking  about  counsel 
to  the  President,  if  you  are  talking  about  Mr.  Haldeman  and  Mr. 
Ehrlichman,  the  answer  to  your  question  is  "Yes." 

Senator  Tunney.  Do  you  make  anv  file  available  to  them  that  the 
FBI  has? 

Mr.  Gray.  Upon  specific  reqviest  from  one  of  those  individuals 
acting  as  the  agent  of  the  United  States,  I  would,  and  I  engage  in  the 
presumption  of  regularity  which  I  think  all  of  us  ha^e  to  engage  in.  I 
can't  be  the  head  of  a  bureau  in  a  department  of  the  executive 
branch  and  say,  no,  I  am  not  going  to  do  this. 

There  are  some  things,  some  areas,  about  which  I  am  very  con- 
cerned, and  one  of  them  happened  in  this  case,  and  I  testified  to  it 
yesterday.  The  memorandum  of  June  19,  1972,  that  I  refused  to  let 
go,  the  memorandum  to  the  Attorney  General  and  the  letter  to  Mr. 
Haldeman — I  stated  those  would  be  included  in  the  record  so  that 
Senators  who  are  members  of  this  committee  can  take  a  look  at  them. 

Senator  Tunney.  Let  us  say  Mr.  Haldeman  made  a  request  of  you 
to  see  my  dossier,  would  you  feel  that  a^ou  were  justified  in  sending  it 
over  to  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  not  without  asking  him  some  questions  and  I 
always  do,  because  I  have  got  a  trust  area  and  that  is  a  battle  of  life 
everyday.  People  put  pressure  on  me  all  the  time  to  take  a  look  at 
individuals'  files  and  even  where  those  people  are  concerned  they  have 
to  have  a  reason.  I  am  very,  very  nasty  about  that,  I  really  am, 
because  I  feel  very  keenly  and  very  strongly  about  that  and  I  don't 
like  to  be  pushed  around. 

Senator  Tunney.  Well,  I  am  sure  that  3'ou  don't  like  to  be,  you 
impress  me  that  way. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes. 

Senator  Tunney.  But  I  would  like  to  know  what  you  would  con- 
sider to  be  a  just  reason  for  submitting  personal  dossiers  to  members 
of  the  White  House  staff. 

Mr.  Gray.  We  don't  do  that  in  that  frame  of  mind.  Name  checks 
come  over  on  individuals  who  are  invitees  to  the  White  House  and 
this  has  been  done  from  time  immemorial.  That  is  one  way. 

As  applicants,  that  is  another  way  that  some  Members  of  Congress 
have  previously  been  investigated  by  the  FBI,  because  at  one  time 
they  were  the  subject  of  an  applicant  investigation.  Still  another  way 


150 

is  the  rare  occasion  when  a  Member  of  Congress  becomes  involved  with 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  an  investigation  is  conducted. 
And  let  me  just  say  for  the  record  now — and  I  will  not  reveal  the 
information,  but  I  will  testif}^  under  oath  at  this  moment  to  trj^  to 
persuade  this  committee — that  during  this  campaign,  information 
was  brought  to  me  regarding  an  individual,  and  I  said,  "Never  bring 
that  kind  of  information  to  me  again,  put  it  under  the  tightest  lock 
and  key  that  we  have  and  do  not  permit  it  to  get  out  of  that  custody, 
and  don't  ever  bring  that  information  to  me  again."  I  made  that 
statement  but  I  will  not  reveal  the  name  of  that  individual  to  anyone. 
I  would  sacrifice  this  position,  ^Senator,  before  I  would  do  it. 

Senator  Tunney.  Nor  should  you.  I  don't  think  you  should  either. 
I  think  it  would  be  very  Mrong  for  you  to  do  that.  But  I  am  trjdng  to 
get  a  better  feel  for  what  3'ou  feel  to  be  the  demarcations  of  policy 
when  3^ou  are  requested  by  Wliite  House  staffers  to  make  available 
information  in  personal  dossiers.  I  assume  that  there  must  be  such  a 
polic}^? 

Mr.  Gray.  When  you  put  the  question  that  way,  I  have  never  had 
a  request  from  anybody  in  the  White  House  since  I  have  been  in  this 
i:)osition  to  make  available  information  from  a  personal  dossier  because 
I  don't  know  really  what  you  are  talking  about.  If  you  are  talking 
about  that  summary  memorandum  that  we  prepared  under  the  Con- 
gressional Services  Unit  program,  no,  that  would  not  be  made  avail- 
able at  all.  That  is  com])letely  for  internal  use  ^nthin  the  Federal 
Bureau  of  Investigation.  If  you  are  talking  about  an  investigative  file 
that  we  have,  if  there  is  some  reason  to  make  pertinent  information  in 
the  file  available  where  we  have  an  inchvidual  under  investigation,  yes, 
I  would  do  that.  If  there  was  some  issue  of  truth  or  falsity  involved  in 
that  type  of  a  case  where  there  are  allegations  that  have  been  made, 
yes,  I  would  pro^dde  the  information  in  order  that  there  be  a  mech- 
anism available  for  the  President  to  get  information  and  try  to  make 
a  judgment.  But  I  would  not  send  over  purely  personal  information 
that  comes  to  our  files  in  the  form  of  anonymous  letters,  informant 
information  and  that  type  of  thing,  and  I  just  won't  do  it. 

Senator  Tunney.  And  you  won't  do  it  with  respect  to  any  person? 

Senator  Kennedy.  Have  you  done  it  at  all  with  respect  to  any 
Member  of  Congress? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  A\on't  do  it.  I  have  set  forth  in  the  FBI  pretty 
firmly  my  policy  about  that.  I  don't  think  there  is  a  member  of  the 
FBI  who  is  in  any  doubt  about  that  at  all. 

Senator  Tunney.  Is  this  a  personal  decision  that  you  have  made, 
or  are  there  certain  procedural  guidelines  in  the  FBI  that  were  avail- 
able to  you  when  you  came  in  as  Acting  Director  that  had  been  set 
up  by  Aour  predecessor? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  are  not  procedural  guidelines  as  such.  We  have  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  Department  of  Justice.  We  have  the  man- 
ual of  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation 
regarding  each  of  our  jurisdictional  categories  in  which  we  investigate 
and  the  dissemination  of  re]:)orts  that  are  to  be  made  thereunder. 
There  are  quite  a  few,  but  what  we  are  talking  about  now  is  the  un- 
ethical, the  hard,  field  type  situation,  somebody  trying  to  cut  some- 
body up  "VAdth  some  inside  information,  and  I  am  not  going  to  be  a 
partA"  to  that. 


151 

Senator  Tunney.  Could  you  tell  the  committee  if  there  are  any 
guidelines  within  the  FBI  with  respect  to  the  accumulation  of  informa- 
tion and  the  storing  of  information  on  individuals?  For  instance,  I 
think  that  you  necessarily  have  to  separate  people  who  were  under 
an  active  criminal  investigation 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Tunney  (continuing).  From  those  people  who  just  happen 
to  be  citizens. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Tunney.  Wlio  happened  to  be  participating,  w^e  mil  sa}^, 
in  outdoor  rallies  or  peace  marches  or  whatever  it  might  be. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Tunney.  Could  you  describe  to  the  committee  what  the 
guidelines  are? 

Mr.  Gray.  Thej^  are  not  real]}-  guidelines,  they  are  jurisdictional 
perimeters  that  are  established  bv  the  statutes  of  the  United  States, 
and  from  the  day  that  I  came  into  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investiga- 
tion, one  of  the  very  first  avenues  of  inquiry  that  I  launched  had  to  do 
\nth  jurisdiction  because  I  knew  this  was  a  problem,  and  we  had  a 
ver}",  very  fine  paper  developed  on  jurisdiction.  We  discussed  it  May 
23  and  ]May  24  at  our  Quantico  meeting,  and  I  have  given  explicit 
instructions  throughout  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  that  we 
investigate  onlv  in  connection  wdth  our  jurisdictional  responsibilities. 

Nov/  that  takes  care  of  us  going  actively  after  someone.  But  we 
acce]:)t  information  of  all  kinds  that  comes  in,  and  here  it  is  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Bureau  supervisor  and  the  officials  trained  in  accordance 
with  the  Bureau's  Manual  of  Rules  and  Regulations  as  to  wdiether  or 
not  to  put  that  in  the  file.  That  would  be  a  general  file.  That  is  not 
the  investigative  file,  and  that  is  actuall}^  the  wa}^  it  w^orks.  We  get  an 
aw^ful  lot  of  anonymous  letters  addressed  to  us  regarding  our  own  peo- 
]i]e,  and  every  one  of  those  is  followed  through  b,v  the  Inspection 
Di\'ision  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation.  We  treat  ourselves 
very  roughl}'  and,  I  think,  rightly  so  because  of  our  position  in  our 
society,  than  we  do  with  all  this  other  mass  of  material  that  comes  in 
pertaining  to  j^ersons  outside  the  FBI,  and  we  i)ut  it  in  the  file. 

Senator  Tunney.  Do  you  know  how  many  names  you  have  in  the 
files  that  you  have  dossiers  on? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  I  don't  use  that  word  "dossier."  You  know, 
every  time  you  use  it  I  am  going  to  respectfully  reserve  the  right  to 
say 

Senator  Tunney.  I  will  not  use  it. 

ISIr.  Gray.  I  don't  use  the  term  ''dossier."  I  know  what  the  dic- 
tionarv  definition  is  but  we  don't  talk  about  it  in  terms  of  "dossier." 
We  talk  in  terms  of  "files." 

Senator  Tunney.  Fine.  [Laughter.] 

Can  you  tell  me  how  many  people  in  the  country  have  files: 

Mr.  Gray.  I  can  tell  you  with  regard  to  fingerprints.  With  regard 
to  our  identification  records,  there  are  roughly  60,000  individuals 
identified  in  our  Identification  Division  and  of  those,  roughl}' — I  am 
sorry,  60  million. 

Senator  Tunney.  Sixty  million. 

Mr.  Gray.  Sixt}^  milhon,  and  of  those,  roughly  20  million  are 
criminal  and  the  other  40  million  are  civil,  and  if  I  have  got  my 
figures  reversed,  I  will  correct  them  for  the  record. 


152 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record .) 

Mr.  Gray:  Yes,  these  figures  are  correct.  I  have  checked  and  as  of  February  1, 
1973,  20,610,183  people  were  represented  m  our  criminal  fingerprint  file  and  40,- 
143,023  people  were  represented  in  our  civil  fingerprint  file. 

Senator  Tunney.  Now,  it  is  my  understanding  that — 

Senator  Kennedy.  Forty  million  files  on  citizens? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  identification  records. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Noncriminal? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct.  Let  me  make  sure,  Senator  Kenned}^, 
now  that  3^ou  are  raising  it,  that  I  have  the  right  number.  I  have  a 
card  on  that  here  somewhere.  We  will  give  you  the  correct  figure. 

Senator  Kennedy.  If  the  Senator  Avould  yield,  could  you  give  us  a 
breakdoAvn  on  what  the  40  million 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  be  happy  to  do  it  because  we  have  been  meeting 
with  Congressman  Edwards'  Judiciary  Subcommittee  No.  4  and 
giving  them  every  bit  of  information  that  they  want  regarding  the 
Identification  Division,  the  National  Crime  Information  Center,  the 
com])uterized  criminal  histor}^,  and  I  will  give  j^ou  these  numbers 
right  now. 

Senator  Kennedy.  If  the  Sanator  would  jdeld,  just  on  the  non- 
criminal. I  would  be  interested  and  perhaps  j^ou  would  submit  the  total 
for  the  record.  But  could  you  give  us  the  noncriminal  40  million 
Americans  that  you  have  files  on? 

Mr.  Gray.  40,143,023.  Those  are  civil.  Those  come  in  all  kind  of 
applicant  type  cards. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Just  break  it  down. 

]Mr.  Gray.  That  is  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wliat  is  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  40,143,023. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Tell  us  how  many  applications  are  for  passports 
and  how  many  are  being  surveilled. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  will  have  to  give  you  that  information. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Can  j'^ou  give  it  to  us? 

Mr.  Gray.  Oh,  certain]3^ 

Senator  Kennedy.  Then  give  it. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  v^'ill  give  it  to  j^ou,  I  would  be  happ}-  to. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Does  your  assistant  have  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

(Mr.  Gray  subseciuently  submitted  the  following  document  for 
the  record :) 

Mr.  Gray:  I  am  submitting  the  following  document  for  the  record.  (Chart: 
"Types  of  Fingerprints  on  File"  dated  February  1,  1973.)  With  reference  to  the 
60,764,535  fingerprint  cards  representing  the  category  of  Governm.ent  services, 
I  should  hke  to  point  out  that  included  in  this  figure  are  42,321,146  Mihtary 
prints  submitted  by  the  various  branches  of  the  services,  17,529,220  Civil  Service 
applicant-type  prints,  and  914,169  Coast  Guard  prints.  The  category  of  Miscel- 
laneous applicant  cards  consists  primarily  of  applicant  fingerprint  cards  sub- 
mitted by  independent  U.S.  Government  agencies,  such  as  Atomic  Energy 
Commission,  Central  Intelligence  Agencj^  and  the  like  in  connection  with  employ- 
ment applications  and  some  applicant-type  fingerprint  cards  submitted  on 
individuals  employed  in  defense  industries.  These  files  do  not  contain  fingerprints 
of  individuals  seeking  passports  as  we  do  not  receive  such  fingerprints.  Further, 
these  civil  fingerprint  files  ai'e  not  utilized  as  a  means  of  surveillance  of  the 


153 

individuals  who  are  represented  in  this  file.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  during 
the  last  fiscal  year  (July  1,  1971-June  30,  1972)  13,640  individuals  submitted  their 
fingerpx'ints  for  inclusion  in  our  files  for  personal  identification  purposes. 


M'lSW-U-    l-l 


...-.^.^-2^^.^^-:,   r^^^i^^,^^-     ■'^il'tlllifrlllii 


TYPES  OF  FiNGERPRlNTS 
ON  FiLE 


'I'll  1^  j^  jijj  ^^J^i^^^Ll^l]■MJ■jHJV^^j^^y;^^^*ww'T?^^^i■iJ^!J^^^y^^■;s^»j^^^|■J]|^i^ll^)^^i^jJ^»(^i^  ■ 


TOTAL: 

159,926,088 

FEBRUARY  I,   1973 


luim 


5.?7i,171 

PEIiSOH.U 

liiiKTiricvnoK 


mmn 


AUUS 


16.711.535 


^    HBliljg 


CRIMINdS  UNO 
SUSPECTS 


GdVERNMiNT         MISCEUtNESUS 
SEimCES  APPlfCAHIS 

(liclidiig  Military)      (InclDdin; 

Delciisi  letiustry} 


ESTIMATED  PERSONS  REPRESENTED: 

For  th»  69,048,205  prtnts  in  the  criminal  fiU     ...•*. 

Fer  th»  rvmoining  prints  totoling    90,^77,883   all  of  wKich  ore  in  the  civil  file 


20,410.183 
40,143,023 


TOTAL  ESTIMATED  PERSONS  REPRESENTED  60  75j  204 


FBI    IDENTIFICATION    DIVISION 


.aani 


Senator  Kennedy.  You  gave  it  to  the  Edwards  committee. 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  they  were  right  there  in  the  Identification 
Division,  but  I  don't  have  those  figures  with  me  today.  They  came  to 
visit  us,  Senator  Kennedy. 

The  Chairman.  That  inchides  apphcations  for  Federal  jobs;  is  that 
correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  All  kinds  of  civil  matters  other  than  criminal  matters. 
Senator  Eastland,  and  they  could  even  be  people  who  are  being  finger- 
printed in  States  under  State  statutes,  you  know,  for  State  employ- 
ment or  State  licensing,  that  type  of  thing. 

Senator  Kennedy.  All  I  am  askmg  is  just  for  a  breakdown. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  will  give  jou  a  breakdown. 

Senator  Hruska.  If  the  Senator  would  yield  just  briefly,  those 
totals  include  fimgerprints  voluntarily  submitted  by  civilians  who 
wanted  their  fingerprints  on  file? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  it  does,  Senator  Hruska. 

Senator  Hruska.  Could  you  give  us  a  breakdown  on  that  when 
you  give  us  the  figures? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  I  would.  There  are  quite  a  few  of  those.  Senator, 
voluntarily  submitted.  One  need — may  I  say,  Mr.  Chairman — one 
need  merely  go  through  an  aircraft  disaster  and  see  how  extremely 
valuable  that  fingerprint  file  is;  that  is  just  one  specific  example. 

Senator  Tunney.  Mr.  Gray,  it  would  be  my  assumption  that  these 
files  would  contain  information  that  would  be  as  scant}'  as  just  a 


154 

fingeri:)rint,  u])  to  a  voluminous  file  containing  what  informers  have 
told  FBI  agents  about  that  jierson. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  Senator  Tunne}^,  what  I  am  talking  about  right  now 
that  I  gave  you  the  numbers  on  are  identification  records  represented 
b}^  a  fingerprint  card. 

Senator  Tunney.  I  see;  those  are  just  the  fingerprints? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  Then  in  connection  with  that  is  developed 
what  we  would  call  the  arrest  records  and  I  would  submit  for  the 
record,  as  I  submitted  to  the  PTouse  Judiciar}^  Subcommittee,  materials 
that  will  show  you  exactly  what  are  contained  in  the  Identification 
Division.  That  is  separate  and  distinct  from  the  Files  and  Communica- 
tions Division,  and  I  welcome  this  opportunit}^  to  explain  this 
distinction. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequent!}^  submitted  the  following  document:) 

Mr.  Graj-:  I  am  submitting  the  following  document  for  the  record  (simulated 
FBI  fingerprint  arrest  file).  You  will  note  that  the  identification  record  itself 
shows  that  Frank  Jones  has  been  hngerprinted  five  times.  Appearing  in  chrono- 
logical order  on  the  record  are  the  identit\^  of  the  contributor  of  the  fingerprints, 


LE«VE  BLANK 


TYPE  OR  PRINT  ALL  INFORMAT'ON  IN  BLACK 


//(je        rfofi/^   <^c/<;^d- >-</ 


IBl  LEAVE  BLANK 


^^/7^/<^ 


STATE  USAGE 


f  A 


'-"'t  ^'  I"""   Doa 


/-i  -A^-^r" 


f^v;^  J- 


£^^ 


0»1E  IBStiTtC'  Of  'ECE.-IP    00^ 


4f 


Amz, 


/D 


j^cxc  r^<,  zi^. 


u 


LEAVE   BLANK 


^     U-O   Wn    W    Q^Uf. 


JJ- 


•  iNiL  oiiro:.! 


L  srcuHT.  HO     SOC 


1" 


^ 


C»U'lClH 


111 


^.,|V      , 


NCIC  CLASS      fPC 


i  I  i  !  M  I  I  I  j-m 


'  "^■"•^' 


'm,. 


0$i^ 


:z 


l-fsaas^^fei- 


1^'/"'- 


#1     M 


Vi-tfT  «ix'»  (iMceiT^TMt"  i''i^T*M(oow>  -  ^  *!;V"\Vi 


\.((T    THVPUB 


,;iJ|P|r 


BI&HT>OtH  fl-Cm  TAKEH  Ill*Utlli»«p01L»       ^S-aJ-^ 


155 

the  name  of  the  individual  used  at  the  time  of  arrest,  the  date  arrested  or  received 
at  the  place  of  incarceration,  the  charge  and  the  disposition  if  available.  Each  line 
entry  appearing  on  every  record  is  supported  by  a  fingerprint  card  and  the  infor- 
mation contained  on  the  record  was  obtained  from  the  fingerprint  card  which  was 
submitted  by  the  arresting  or  receiving  agency.  The  fingerprint  cards  are  retained 
in  the  individual's  hie.  You  will  note  there  are  hve  entries  on  the  identification 
record  and  only  four  fingerprint  cards  in  the  file.  One  fingerprint  card,  in  this  case 
that  submitted  by  the  DC  Court  of  General  Sessions,  Washington,  D.C.,  dated 
2-10-66,  is  filed  bj-  fingerprint  classification  in  the  criminal  searching  file.  In- 
coming fingerprint  cards  are  searched  by  fingerprint  classification  against  this  file 
in  order  to  effect  identifications  and  gain  access  to  fingerprint  records  such  as  this 
simulated  record  which  I  have  presented.  Also  contained  in  this  simulated  record 
is  a  sample  disposition  form  which  we  furnish  to  every  fingerprint  contributor  for 
the  purpose  of  reporting  final  dispositions  to  us.  The  only  t3-pe  information  re- 
tained in  this  file  is  obtained  from  fingerprint  cards  or  related  fingerprint  forms 
such  as  the  disposition  sheet.  These  fingerprint  files  are  completely  separate  and 
distinct  from  our  investigative  files. 


FEDERAL     BUREAU     OF    INVESTIGATION.     UNITED     STATES     DEPARTMENT     OF     JUSTiCt 

WASHINGTON,  D    C    20537  


PHOTO  AVAIL, 


A=U>  [-J  [— ] 


IF  AVAILABLE,  PASTE  PHOTO  OVER  INSTRUCTIONS 
IN  DOTTED  AREA    


(00  MOT  USE  lT*PLEil 

VNCE  PHOTOC««PH  uir  BECOuE  OCTkCHtD  IMCMOTE  NAME. 
DtTE  TAIEM,  FBI  hUuBER   CONTRIBUTOR   AND  AftRElT  HUuBER 
Om  bE'ER^E  l'0(.  »HETMER  *IT*CMtO  TO  (IhCERPRIMT  C'RDOI 
iuB-iTTriii.»ita. 


IF  ARREST  FINGERPRINTS  SENT  FBI  PREVIOUSLY  AND  FBI  NO    UNKNOWN. 
FURNISH  ARREST  NO DATE 


STATUTE  CITATION  isee  .hitruct-ox  mo  »i     C(T 

2. 

3. 


ARREST  DISPOSITION  iiE£  ihiuuctiOm  mo  ii     ADN 


EMPLOYER:  IF  u.  i  coverk-emt.  imoicaie  iPtciFic  acemct 

IF  MiLIT*RT.  LliT  BBiMCM  OF  SERVICE  IHD  itfilAL  NO. 


INSTRUCTIONS 

,  UMltSJ  OTXtRBISE  PffO'lOEO  BT  RECULkTiQN  IM  TOU*  tT«T;  f\>*'A«r 
*BE  TO  ei  luewiTTEO  OiRtC'LT  TO  FBI  iCENT'FiCaTicm  D'vli'ON  FOR"»l 
MEr'UFL*  FOR  -OH  EFFECTIVE  StH'iCE. 


IMSEi 


■    ARRFl' 


IMTI   ytouLO  BE 
T)  OX  SAME  CHABCt   IhOULD  MQT  BE  5U8"i"f  El  B' 


C    Art" : 


Ti^e 


iCSMClEi  KJCM  »i 

■LI  HECEtnMC  ACEMClEV  ETC.t.  REOtltlT  C0P^£1  0«  FB'  iDEMTIFiCiTiOw  REC- 
ORD FOR  AIL  OrwER  IMTEREITEO  ACEMCiEi  1^4  BLCC^  B*-0"  WE  CO-^LdE 
UA'LINO  AOOREil    IMCLUO'mC  ZIP  CODE. 

,    TYPE  OR  PRIMT  ALL  tMFDRu4TI0M. 

.    MOTE   AuPolAllOKS  iW  PRO°FB  FIMCE»  BLOCKS 

.  LIST  i^iNAL  OtlPOMTlOS  IN  PLOCK  OM  FROMT  ii3E  IF  NOT  NO*  AVlrLABLE,  lUB- 
Mi?  LATER  0'(  FBI  FORu  R-S-;  F0»  Cf'*'LETICN  OF  RECORD  I'  Fi1»L  OISPOM- 
TiOM  Mm  (ViiLABLE  «<0"  PaE-THi»L  OB  leCE'.T^NC  ACEMC  OllPOMTlOM  «.  «.. 
eELE»5EC.  MO  FORMAL  CH»CCE,  EA'L.  TJHMEO  3*ER  TO.  tN  TfE  AR»EIT  CliPOSL 
TlOM  bLOCK   PROVIDED  CM  THI&  WOE. 


E  CER' 


'REiMOMS  ABE  LEC'3LE   FoLLT  ROLLCOAmO  CLASKFUBLE. 


,  CAUTIOM  -  ChECH  P0>  OM  FPOHT  IF  C*tJTl9M  iT»I£MEH»  IMl?tC*TEO.  BAllS  FOR 
CAUTiOM  (ICOl  MUST  r.ivt  REAJON  FOS  C«liTIOM  ..  ...  AP-EO  AMO  OAMCEROUJ. 
lOICIPAL.  E.-:. 

MIICELIAMFOUI   ML'MBEP    ("MUI    ■   IKOULO   IMCLUOE   VCN   MUuBERl   »i   MtLITART 
iERVlCc.   PAISKORT   AMC/OB   "tTtBANl  »0UIMIIT«»T(0N  llOEMTIfT   TYPE  OF  MUu- 


FROI'IOE    ITATUTf;    CITAtlOM.    lOEMTIFTINC    SPEC'FIC    ITATUT!    Iit.-e't    -    PL    ••• 
PENAL  L*"l  »MD  CRIMINAL  CODE  C'TATIC"*  WCLUOiMC  ANT  lOB-iECTiONl. 


If  ORUATION  REOUCITCP  IS  EM(NT> 


OCCUPATION 


^±/£j_^dLk±^ 


RESIDtNCE  OF   PERSON  FINGERPRINTED  . 

SCARS,  MARKS,  T((tioos.  ano  amputati/Sns     sm; 


SEND  CCPY  TO; 


BASIS  FOR  CAUTION      ICO 


DATE  OF  OFFENSE      000 


MISC.  NO.      MNU 


SKIN  TONE       SKN 


ADDITIONAL  INFORMATION 


■0-249  (REV.  4  26  71)    CCPOiieTl   0-437-611 


REPLY  DESIRED'  YES  NO 

□  □ 

(BI-PLT  WILL  BE  SENT  IH  ALL   CAIES  'r  SUBJECT   ftiUfD  TO  fl£  • 


TELEP.ICNt  REFl 


TELEPMOME  MO,  *«0  APEi 


□ 


LEAVE  BLANK 


LEAVE  B:.ANK 


156 

Senator  Tunney.  Well,  now  with  respect  to  the  Records  Division, 
where  you  keep  fuller  information  than  just  the  fingerprints,  how 
many  files  do  you  have  there? 

Air.  Gray.  I  don't  have  that  figure  offhand.  We  will  have  to  provide 
it.  There  are  a  substantial  number  of  files. 

(Mr.  Gra^y  subsec[uently  submitted  the  following  document:) 

As  of  March  1,  1973,  there  are  6,426,813  files. 

Senator  Tunney.  Now,  to  what  extent  is  this  information  stored 
in  the  National  Crime  Information  Center  data  bank? 

Mr.  Gray.  This  is  very,  verv  complicated.  The  National  Crime 
Information  Center  itself  as  of  February  23,  1973,  active  records  in 
the  NCIC  data  bank  are  as  follows:  stolen  securities,  1,331,099; 
stolen  vehicles,  782,983;  stolen  articles,  616,123;  stolen  guns,  572,232; 
computerized  criminal  history  subjects — now  here  we  are  coming  to 


irA'.v   BLANK 


TYPE  OR  PRINT  ALL  INFORMATION  IN  BLACK 


Co/, 


<e  >i,j.iA ,  c/a 


'k 


iO. 


™  LEAVE  BLANK 


•    /■/ 


-  r- 


K»,0<-  «   -,t- 


/^-  i^  -3) 


DCfl  eitt  'EO    00 A 


rf^v 


HCH*1U«€  0'   Di  ',C  • 


r-'^-'-r 


t. 


/7*-yneJ^    noke^i-y 


'■•o    CCA 


i^\   6'     Vjo     <g. 


e- 


^dik 


LEAVE  BLANK 


yy  ^' 


fi«..  O'l'Oiit.OM 


_9Miii,MiiiiMimmi>ia 

li..J—i  .1  i.iLiiMTiwiiLi 


NCIC  CLASS      fPC 


'^■'^\ 


WK 


'""^     '■""^S^       -    '^^^^^f^,Z^^~'^.-~.^ii;^ 


'-  --5%.;/;»VK4. 


i  i  rr 


4 


-\ 


sise^  -•-'^^*?i!-- »v-r^ 


^:?'^m^am:i. 


\- 


^M(,;..^- 


M 


■    *',«.- 


-?S-y. 


iW 


m 


!fe 


:--s?^.v-- 


i  ^  ':'/ 


\  - 


^' 


E    r  FOUA  F  H   EVS'TUfN  lH*JLTtMECNjH.> 


^^F^ 

.  V^^""' 

BIGHT  IHU'3 

BICMT  rou*  FiN&EKS  TAKEM  JIMILTWEOUILT       V   ~ 


157 

people — 288,207;  stolen  license  plates,  222,976;  wanted  persons, 
123,358;  stolen  boats,  6,490;  and  the  grand  total  is  3,943,468. 

Senator  Tuxxey.  \Miat  is  the  statutor}'  authority  for  the  National 
Crime  Information  Center? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  the  Federal  statute  wliich  charges  the  AttorncA' 
General  of  the  United  States  to  maintain  and  keep  such  records,  and 
it  is,  I  think,  section  534;  but  my  memory  may  not  be  correct,  I  can't 
remember  the  title,  but  we  can  certainly  submit  that  for  the  record. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsecjuently  submitted  the  following  document  for 
the  record:) 

Mr.  Graj^  The  authority  for  operation  of  the  XCIC  is  derived  from  Title  28j 
Section  534,  U.S.  Code,  which  provides: 
"(a)  The  Attorney  General  shaU — 

(1)  acquire,  collect,  classify,  and  preserve  identification,  criminal  identifi- 
cation, crime  and  other  records;  and 


FEDERAL     BUREAU     OF    INVESTIGATION,     UNITED     STATES     DEPARTMENT    OF     JUSTICE 

WASKINGTON,  D.  C,  20537 


IF  AV.>.LJ3L£.  ?53"=  s-'OTO  0VE5  INST^LCTCIS 
IN  OOTTEO  aB;«. 

SINCE  PMOTOCBiFW  ii»»  BECOMC  OITlC^f  P  isaCiTE  IPA-E 
O.TC  T»«EM,  feiMW-eER.CC-BiWToa  MtOneBESTwuwBE* 
OM  BEvEPVE  VPE    *METM£«  *tT»c«E3  10  Fll«.EB«l»*r  C*B3  W 
W6MITTE3  V*TtB. 


IF  ABBE5T  flNSERPONTS  SENT  ^Bl  PKr.lOL'SLY  AND  FBi  NO    UNKNOWN 
FuflNlSH  ARREST  NO  _ OATC — — 


STATUTE  CITATION    Iti  Hia*,!:  o*-u  '.     CIT 

1. 
2. 

3. 


IBE  IC  »E  iU»»'T-SO  0-JECn.T  TO  FBI  OEjtTinc»r«.  otBiuw.    FaB»»ao  m, 
UEOIBTELT  FOB  i*3iT  EFFtCTI*E  JEBviCE. 

!.  FWOEBPBIKIS  SNWLC  BE  SUB^'TTEO  Bt  iBBElTiwC  kZ-l^d  Qnlt  'uutTl^t 
PBWT5  0-  IWE  CH*BtE  MlW-'LOj^  BF  WBu  tTEO  8t  OTkEB  iiEWCtEt  UKK  »1 
J*1L;  BFC'ivtNT  iCENCiES  ETCJ  tEIt-EIT  COBrEi  OF  Fa:  IBEIFTIFICBHOFF  BEC 
OBC  FOB  ALl  OIHEB  INIEBESIEO  .OB>l.lE>  IK  BLOCT  SEIO".  a»E  CO-PtEtl 
M»'L:J«C*OCBEii   INC'.UCIKC  ZIP  COOE. 

I,    TTBEOB  BBlllT  »LL  IMFOBMAT-Ct* 

I.  HOU  JOiruTiliWlw  BBOBCB  FwCEB  BLOCtt 

I  uiF  FIKAL  DilWJllFlO"  i-  BtOCl  ON  FBONT  HCE.  IF  M*T  «»  Avhl»8LE.  SUB- 
MT  IB7EB  OH  FBI  'OBm  B-F;  FOB  C3-FLfTIOI  CF  BECOBD  IF  Fih»L  OUnU- 
TON    NOT    BTIILIBLE    »IO-    PBE    -BIFl.    OB    BBBE^TINC    »0ENCF    WS-OHTION...   ,.. 

BELEASE).  NO  FOBN»L  CHiBCE    Sill    TOBNEO  OvEB  TO    m  TNE  »BBEiT  OliBOM. 
TICBI  BLOCK  FBO'lVtO  ON  tnil  WOE- 


i.    HBFE   CEBTI 


iBBEiSiWi  »BE  LEOiBlE   FuLLT  BO'.tEO  bnB  CLBlilFlBBLE. 


ARREST  DISPOSITION    !■!  - 


3^ 


>-5- 


OCCUPATION 


RESIDENCE  OF  PtaOON  FiNGEfiPRihTED 


SCARS.  MARKS.  TATTOOS.  AND  AWP'JTATIOhS        SV.T 


BASIS  FOR  CAUTION      XC 


C*UTD»  -  0£C«  M*  W  *90«T  1*  C*U»'(W  JT»TI 
C>UTiOM  nCO'  **1T  CJ*£  ttiiO"  F9«  C*UTI»«,  • 
ICICCIL    ETC. 

-ISCELLAWECUI   KU-BIB   Omrj}    -   WtUlD   IXCLUBE   WJCM   »iU-«IBt   »i   mH.iT»«Y 
lES'iCe,   P*1S«>IT   *HtVO«   vjTEilMti  »OMimSII»*TW<  llOfKTtFT   TYPE  OF  MOM- 


rnrmt  jtivjte  cit4tk^,  iBEttfiFttNC  vtonc  statuti  t.«-»i.  -  pl  (•• 

f  £>.»L  L«r;  M.&  C«i«W*l.  COOE  CIT*IKW  idCLUC-C  U*1  SUiiECTlOni. 


4LL  tN'CSxiTIOK  R(0(JEST«0  '1  ElSH^Ti 


ZifiO  COPY  TO 


REPLY  DESIRED' 


□       □ 

iBEFLT  Wiil.  ^E  iENI  IM  tlL  OiE  J  '=  SuSjECT  'Ouvp  TO  BE  -».«<TESi 


(F  COLLECT  wise  OB  COILECI  Tti.£PH5Ht  »*PL' 

reVBEO.  mWCATEMEKE     ITIREIESTOH  tU.  U-X^hO^  3ECE»tE5i 

WBE  R'PLT  TELEPHOHE  BEFLt  TELEPMOHt  i-O    ^"0  »»€*  COBE 


DATE  OF  OFFENSE 

DOJ                              SKIN  TONE       SKH 

leAVE  31ANK 

MISC.  NO.    mm; 

ACS  TIONll  INFGRMATICN 

UAVE  8L«m< 

F0-2B9  IREV.  4  2e  7;> 

CFO  :  ler:  O  -  437-Sll 

91-331—7; 


-11 


158 

(2)  exchange  these  records  with,  and  for  the  official  use  of,  authorized 
officials  of  the  Federal  Government,  the  States,  cities,  and  penal  and  other 
institutions. 

(b)  The  exchange  of  records  authorized  by  subsection  (a)  (2)  of  this  section  is 
subject  to  cancellation  if  dissemination  is  made  outside  the  receiving  departments 
or  related  agencies. 

(c)  The  Attorney  General  may  appoint  officials  to  perform  the  functions 
authorized  bj*  this  section." 

In  addition,  with  respect  to  the  dissemination  of  criminal  history  records, 
Title  II  of  Pubhe  Law  92-544  states: 

"  *  *  *  The  funds  provided  for  Salaries  and  Expenses,  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation,  may  be  used  hereafter,  in  addition  to  those  uses  authorized  there- 
under, for  the  exchange  of  identification  records  with  officials  of  federall.y  chartered 
or  insured  banking  institutions  to  promote  or  maintain  the  security  of  those 
institutions,  and,  if  authorized  by  State  statute  and  approved  by  the  Attorney 
General,  to  officials  of  State  and  local  governments  for  purposes  of  emplo3-ment 
and  licensing,  any  such  exchange  to  be  made  only  for  the  official  use  of  any  such 
official  and  subject  to  the  same  restriction  with  respect  to  dissemination  as  that 
provided  for  under  the  aforementioned  appropriation  *  *  *  " 

Senator  Tunney.  To  what  extent  is  the  information  verified  before 
it  goes  into  the  bank  and  to  what  extent  does  it  go  in  in  raw  form? 

Mr.  Gray.  As  far  as  the  computerized  criminal  histor}'  is  concerned 
that  is  an  entirel}^  new  concept  that  we  are  developing  as  a  subsidiary 


LEAVE  BLANK 


TYPE  OR  PRINT  ALL  INFORMATION  IN  BLACK 

IkW  KMt    NAM  Fl«lt  -»-f  -PHI 


rurkef.       /^d.t^. 


4^^ 


OT<^  <.  <, 


LEAVE  ULANK 


.?^^-9>v-C 


S1AT£  USAGE 


il-J^il. 


.'I  Of  8i*'«     OOB 


iJL^2±^L^Jil 


f   Bt   CO-»Li'l«. 


!r^!fZf2 


2L 


fy 


<S/- 


Pi.ct  oc  out"    POB 


Asiyj'T 


LEAVE    BLANK 


-** ' 


// 


f   -XL.  D<1^0ilII0N 


NCIC  CLASS      Fcr 


r^"  I     I     '     I     '     !   ^ '     '     '     '     '     I     ' 


4F'^-^^ 


m 


I.  „;;;..„., 


CGWi  artJoLt 


|.li«T    IIl«C 


'"'* 


fiSsS^s:^;^ 


.  LcrT^rWH*-:  -y  ^ 


tTiaWV'y'" 


if^:?  J.--'- 


'-//Ay^svf:>, 


,:&„^a^^^ 


y 


P%  IT 


"W^ 


159 

under  the  National  Crime  Information  Center  .We  are  developing;  that 
in  conjunction  with  law-enforcement  agencies  throughout  the  Na- 
tion. We  have  an  Advisory  Policy  Board  made  up  of  senior  law-en- 
forcement officials  from  the  various  regions  who  are  elected  b}'  the 
members  of  the  law-enforcement  community  in  that  particular  region, 
and  they  come  in  and  meet  regularly  and  establish  policy.  And  in  the 
computerized  criminal  history,  abcut  which  I  will  submit  detailed 
documentation  for  the  record  to  show  you  what  this  really  is  and  ex- 
plain it  to  you,  we  have  some  rather  tight  and  stringent  standards 
that  do  not  exist  today  in  the  manually  operated  sj'stem.  You  have 
to  think  in  terms  of  our  Identification  Division  which  I  discussed  a 
little  earlier,  which  is  all  a  manual  system;  you  now  have  to  think  in 
terms  of  a  computerized  criminal  history  system  which  is  computerized 
and  is  over  in  the  Computer  Systems  Division  and  there  are  very, 
very  tight  standards  for  the  insertion  of  information  into  a  compu- 
terized criminal  history.  This  is  not  the  drop-in  type  of  thing.  John 
Doe  wTites  us  and  sa3-s  that  somebod}'  is  doing  something  and  we- 
throw  it  in  a  file  and  forget  it.  This  is  not  that  type  of  system  at  all. 
This  is  a  system  designed  and  geared  to  accuracy. 

Let  me  go  to  the  specific  question  that  you  asked  which  is  one  that 
the  Bureau  has  battled  with  for  a  long,  long  time.  You  really  are  talking 
about  the  record  of  dispositions  in  cases,  the  arrest  record.  You  take- 
a  look  at  an  arrest  record  of  an  individual.  The  far  right-hand  column 
is    the    disposition     column.     Wliat    jou    are    interested    in    realhr 


FEDERAL     BUREAU     OF    INVESTIGATION,     UNITED     STATES    DEPARTMENT    OF    JUSTICE 
WASHINGTON.  D.  C,  20537 


PHOTO  AVAlLASLfr 


n    □ 


WSTHUCTIOMS 


IF  ARDEST  FtNCEWPRINTS  SENT  FBI  PREVIOUSL*  AND  FBI  fW    UNKNOWN, 
fURNISM  ARREST  NO  ^ DATE 


3  piHctiriwii  inoiji.t>  •!  y.t 

riiHllOHlw.t  <nt«C(  tXOULOIO^^K  VUtMTKOI'  01 

f»-n  •ic€i'i»c  «c(x:>ii  t'c  >  •twjfji  to»'«o»  »i 

OIB    tot   <lk.L  CTHII   IHTOIlTtO   ICCHOIl  IH  •IK*   • 
HiillMClDetftS,  iHCl,UOrB&  Iir  CODt. 

].    TtPIOI  MlHT  aVl  IHrO>H*TIOH. 

*.  HOti  ii«njT*ii»>i  iH  non*  "Hcr*  ■loch 


DOTIXCATIWItC 
0>    CJTI  COifLirt 


STATUTE  ClTATiON  iift  .■iiucieH  -0  •!     CIT 


3 

'   c*uT«H    com  toi  0"  •■ 

C1U1«M   <iCO<  MVtT    ClX   *l 
HI1CI0»1    lie. 

1     -BCtLlUiKOUl  (.UMBtf   OW 

5(«»ic(   p«iiP3<T  uiwon 

'IHtL  Lt*l  IMS  CCIHIKAk.  CO 

XT  If  OUI-OH  tltTtiiEHT  iHOicmo     a>t<i  rcM 

410H    lot    CtUtlOM     ..    (.      *aillD    MO    OANCItOUJ. 

ARRtSI   DISPOSITION  >iti  i-i<«uc>tox  hl   ^>     ADN 

Ill       WCl-LO   IMClimi    HJCM  UUNBttt   M  t-LITWW 
IT(«4H1  IDMIIItraotlON  flOOlllfT   TTfl  OF  mt. 

t.  «l.-.».     I'll  *I..CM  O:  Iti'iCt  MO  ilfi.L  -0 

lOtxItfTIHC  WlOftC   IT»TW>«   l.»»J.   -   n.   1.. 
t  CiTlTIOH  inCLUMM  wn  MIMCTKML 

OCCUPATION 

SEND  COPT  TO 

nCSIDEMCC  or  person  riNCERPRINTEO 

SCiWS,  W*RKS    TATTOOS,  ARD  AKPUTATtONS        SWT 

REyLY  DESIRED'                 YES 

__^^^^__^^ a^ 

NO 

□ 

«]ICI  FOl-HP  to  (t  ■IHTMI 

'□'    '"□""" 

-(■ir-ir 

B*5tS  FOn  CAUTION      ICO 

(u  unoio""  fitciuaw. 
lEiTPMOHf  «o.  MD  mm  ••« 

BATE  OF  OfFtnSE      DOO 

SKIN  TONE      SKN 

LEAVE  BLANK 

Wise    Ita.      WfjU 

f  D  M9  Wn.  *4t  7U    •  OP*  :  19T1  0  •  « 

INFORMATION 
I-tH 

LEAVE  BLANK 

160 

is  what  lias  been  the  disposition,  and  we  don't  know  the  percentage  of 
those  entries  unthout  disposition.  What  we  do  know  is  that  we,  and 
the  enth-e  law-enforcement  communit}",  have  been  working  mightily 
to  insure  that  dispositions  are  submitted  and  that  we  have  disposi- 
tions, and  when  we  send  out  an  arrest  record  it  contains  information 
that  advises  the  recipient  to  clieck  with  the  originating  law-enforce- 
ment agency  for  any  questions  about  this  because  what" we  are,  Sena- 
tor, is  a  repository.  But  we  do  have  some  policy  exhortations  that  we 
make,  and  this  is  one  of  them,  to  get  the  dispositions  in. 

Now,  within  the  National  Crime  Information  Center  are  elements 
in  the  criminal  justice  system  that  eventually  will  have  a  terminal  so 
that  when  an  individual  has  a  court  disposition  that  court  will  come  in 
with  that  disposition,  the  correctional  institution  that  receives  that  in- 
dividual will  come  in  with  that  fact,  the  parole  and  probation  system 
that  receives  that  individual  will  come  in  with  that  fact.  That  is  a 
long  way  down  the  road,  but  that  is  what  we  are  working  for  in  the 
manual  system. 

(Mr.  Gra3-  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document:) 

By  way  of  background  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  on  December 
10,  1970,  authorized  the  FBI  to  develop  and  implement  a  program  for  the  inter- 
state exchange  of  criminal  history  records  through  the  National  Crime  Information 


IE«VE  9l«NK 


TYPE  OR  PStNT  AIL  INFORMATION  IM   3LACK 


15!  LEAVE  BLANK 


S^<^^7^-C, 


Kit  f*-^t-i<y<    ^  - 


;-.-jt  ;p  T.-Ei.::    r>r,A 


Jtfr-U 


tiOATuGt  01  &)flL>ft 


i'.(,t»«ih'i 


'7->9'i.Y'~    \a,\IA    '(>'    Mi^Vg.Vu. 


u 


^^^yU^TC  -^     ^~'-'   f 


EAVE   UL«NK 


/> ,  ^^ 


IM*L  OIl^tlTlOM 


^sIDZlIII 


l^^fwl , 


NCIC  C  A  J5      FfC 


m-r-rrrrn-m 


rf/«f/sa^%.. 


-ii^t; 


-%^       t" 


;;;^Si, 


*' V 


10     Iff  KtiLt 


iflissm 


# 


' TT"' — ;■  Tj 


Hs^^ 


^ 


161 

Center  (NCIC)  which  operates  a  telecommunication  network  over  dedicated 
lines  to  criminal  justice  agencies  in  each  of  the  50  states,  32  metropolitan  areas 
and  some  Federal  agencies. 

The  Computerized  Criminal  Historj^  (CCH)  File  is  now  one  of  the  eight  files 
in  NCIC.  The  other  seven  files  relate  to  wanted  persons  and  stolen  property.  The 
purpose  of  CCH  is  to  speed  up  the  criminal  justice  process.  A  more  rapid  ftow  of 
criminal  offender  information  can  bring  about  more  realistic  decisions  with  respect 
to  bail,  sentencing,  probation,  and  parole.  For  over  4S  years  the  FBI  has  been 
exchanging  criminal  history  information  with  police,  courts,  and  correctional 
agencies  in  the  form  of  the  criminal  identification  record  using  the  United  States' 
mails.  The  NCIC  system  offers  a  more  efficient  and  effective  means  of  handling 
this  essential  service.  Statistics  have  demonstrated  that  our  crime  problem  is 
substantially  the  criminal  repeater.  Our  police,  prosecutors,  courts,  and  correc- 
tional agencies  need  to  know  the  complete,  up-to-date  ci-iminal  history  of  an 
offender  if  they  are  to  arrive  at  intelligent  decisions. 

The  ecu  record  is  segmented  to  include  identification  information  concerning 
the  individual,  as  well  as  available  and  significant  data  concerning  arrests,  court 
dispositions  and  custod3Vsupervision  status  changes  following  conviction. 

The  ultimate  concept  of  NCIC  is  that  there  will  be  a  national  index  to  criminal 
history  records  of  individuals  arrested  for  serious  or  significant  offenses.  FBI 
studies  have  shown  that  about  70  percent  of  rearrests  will  be  within  the  same  state; 
therefore,  an  offender  criminal  history  file,  in  scope  and  use,  is  essentially  a  state 
file  and  a  state  need.  There  is,  however,  substantial  interstate  criminal  mobility 
which  requires  sharing  of  information  from  state  to  state.  A  national  index  is 
required  to  coordinate  the  exchange  of  criminal  history  data  among  state  and 


FEDERAL    BUREAU     OF    INVESTIGATION, 

WASHINGTO 


UNITED     STATES     DEPARTMENT    OF     JUSTICE 
H.  0.  C.  20537 


PHOTO  AVAILABlEf 


□  □ 


tF  AVAILABLE.  PASTE  PHOTO  OVER  WSTHUCTiONS 
m  DOTTED  AREA.  


(DO  HOT  UlE  ITA.F'LEtl 

VMCt  PKOTOtBiPM  H*r   BtCPM(  OtT/CMtO  IWDCC«tt  MtMt, 
DltE   T*t[H.  rei  NU>-BER   CONTVittJTOH   Jk-tD  IK^EST  Hllii«FI» 
OX  RE'teiE  tlOE     ntETHE*  «TriCHCD   TO  FIMCEIPSiHI  CUD  0« 
UftHiTTED  LITtl. 


IN3TPOCT?0*<S 
uvLlil  OT^tfroiiF  PBO-iDjc  BT  »*ct;L*Tic"  in  TOui  st»ri    rmcttftiMTS 

»RE    TO   »E    Sl'Bi-TTtC  L.BfCTtT    IC   t6l   IptMTIF'CHIO!*  WOllOt*.     FOK>*ltO  M- 

MfWitrLT  rp»  HCiT  F»rec*ivE  i'Kvict. 

,    FIKCIffStKTJ  XDULP  St    WiewiTTED   FT    ABKCSTIWC  AygtC*   0M1.T  fHULTlPLF 
FDIH'il  OM  Uvt  CKtCSr  IHOOLD  MQT  eF  ^USMTTt)  B*  Zr.itt  AGtWCICl  WCM  it  , 
ja'Ll    KtCtlviNC.  »C.*»*C'E1.  f  TC  '    «?OUeiT  CO^ltJ  OF  *»t  rMM-inC»T(OM  lie-' 
013  F0»  »l-.  Olt*!*  IHTtBt'TCD  AtEKCiei  m  "LOCI  ilLW.  SI'C  COMnnC 
w*.iI;NC  «3DaE»  tNCLUDIMC  11^  CCOt, 


rF  APREST  FINGERPRINTS   SENT  TBI  PREVIOUSLY   AND  TBI  HO    l-N'<fOWN, 
FURNISH  ARREST  NO   D.'.TE 


STATUTE  CITATICi^  iKe  iwtTsucTiON  mo  ii     CIT 

1. 

2. 

J. 


ARREST  DISPOSITION  lUE  ihstrucT'Ommo.  :>)     ADW 


EMPLOYER:  iF  u  s  oo-jfu-e"'  iHDiCiTi  specific  .cjxc. 

IF  MILIWrT,  KiT  6>[iMCH  OF   ilFv\Ct  UiO  SERIAL  hC 


OCCUPATION 


RtSIOENCE  OF  PERSON  FINGCRPRfSTtU 


SCARS.  MARKS,  TATTOOS.  AND  AMPUTATIONS        SWT 


BASIS  FOR  CAUTION      ICO 


DATE  OF  OFFENSE      DCO 


SKlH  TONE       SKN 


MISC.  NO.      MNU 


A0DtTtON«L  INFORWATION 


fO  249  (REV    4  26-71)    *>  CPO  :  J97I    O  ■  437-611 


4.    HC'.Z  Uif^JIATIOHStH  PrOPES  FiKCEt  ftLOCkt. 

i,  -^in  Fl».«l  D«tfOMTiOM  IN  ttOC«  Of  FIOUT  Wg*  IF  i^OT  MC*  l-^i'lalLC.  iUI- 
kli  l,*Tt«  OH  FB'  rOBu  S.U  FOh  C0M»l.t"Ov  0*  "CCtWD.  JF  *l*i*t  OtSPQU- 
TOK  Hi-  *VA;L*^Lt  »<0"  "BE  TBiA^  OJI  .ascrmc  ACfC"  O'.POliTIOM,  •.  ». 
C*LE*>tC  ■•!>  FOBMi^t.  CMi«CE  fttlk.  1  ll«ti(0  OVE^  'C.  r-  T^.l  *<(«E1T  OIIPOU. 
TiO"  ■■..rCI   PBOVIOEI.  ON  THIl  ItOt. 

t     *»r:  CfKTiW  *IL  mt-BEiilOPC!  «»E  LCCItlt,  FULtt  ■Of.lCOWOCLklBnULC 

7  C»L-Tra^  CVECF  »Ct  OS  FPOt»T  !?  CA'JTIOM  STiTE-eMT  ■■•(KOITW.  lAUl  FO* 
CAIJTIOH   <iro>  WU^T    CivE   BEAMM   FOR   CAUTIOM.   *.   «^   iULEO   «N0   (MMCCDQUS. 

WIC'DJiL.  ETC. 

t.  MrlCEt^AMEOUt  HVMBEIt  [HNLV  -  SHOULD  'fiClUOE  UC*  w'JMBCBl  Mi  MUTABT 
irRVICE.   P*VS*nBT   AMVOK   VEIEBANS  «t)W'r«ISTItAT;3K  lU'CMTiFT   T1PC  Of  MUN- 

»     PBO'TJE   ITXTUTE   CIT*ltOW    I9EMTIFT1NC  IPCOFlC   l'*TUTE  {■••>«U  .  PL  Im  . 
P£«»L  lt»l  *ODC»IMWAL  CODE  CITATtOM  iMCLUC'l^  ««'  UiS  ICCTIOMS. 

IP     11',  INf  0CU»1I0»  HFCWESTED  1^  ElJEKTIJkL. 


5lUo  COPY  TO; 


RFPLY   DE.-lHtD' 


□ 


■"ifL^jnite^iEMT  -rf  *'.L  C*-eiiF  MJajtCT   tOL-O  TO  EE 


*  COLLECT  «ief  CM  ;0L-  tCT  TIlIPrtUiE  BEPIY 

>l-^iiu  -Nlfltite  ftnf     iwiRE  ;(iTO"  Alt  L'M'JOWW  3ECEA1E3I 

TSlEVMOME  RFPlT  TELEPt^OKE  MO    aHC   iK£»  COCE 


!  iZj  □ 


L^AVE  bl4jvf. 


)-t'AVE  eiAhX. 


162 

Federal  jurisdictions  and  to  contend  with  intei'state  criminal  mobility.  These 
considerations  give  rise  to  the  "multi-state,  single-state"  concept.  NCIC/CCH 
will  maintain  an  abbreviated  or  summarj^  record  (index)  on  single-state  offenders 
and  a  complete  detailed  record  on  multi-state  offenders. 

Entries  (except  Federal  offenders  which  the  FBI  will  enter)  into  the  CCH  file 
will  be  made  from  the  state  level  with  each  entry  supported  by  a  fingerprint  card. 
Should  the  state  agency  not  be  able  to  identify  a  fingerprint  card  in  its  state 
identification  bureau  it  would  forward  the  card  to  the  FBI  which  would  conduct 
a  technical  fingerprint  search  in  an  effort  to  identify  the  individual  with  an  existing 
CCH  record  from  another  state.  If  no  identification  is  made,  the  submitting  state 
would  establish  a  CCH  record.  If  an  identification  is  made,  the  submitting  state 
would  update  the  existing  CCH  record  with  this  arrest.  Should  this  latter  action 
have  the  effect  of  creating  a  multi-state  record  the  abbreviated  national  record 
would  be  replaced  by  a  complete  detailed  record. 

Currently  the  national  file  contains  the  complete  record  and  will  continue  to  do 
so  until  such  time  as  all  states  develop  essential  services  such  as  identification, 
information  flow  and  computer  sj'stems  capabilities.  The  CCH  Program  will  be 
continually  evaluated,  looking  toward  implementation  of  the  single-state/multi- 
state  concept. 

The  CCH  Program  was  initiated  on-line  through  the  NCIC  system  in  Novem- 
ber, 1971.  Currently  the  states  of  Arizona,  Florida,  Illinois,  New  York,  and  Penn- 
sylvania have  supplied  to  the  FBI  computerized  records  for  the  national  file.  In 


1,1 


^0^ 


Vt^ 


K-«<(R<-v.  R.2<»-7i)  FINAL   DISPOSITIOK   REPORT 

Note:  ThJK  vittil  rrport  must  be  prepared  on  each  individual  whose  arrest  finRerprints  have  been  forwarded 
to  the  FBI  IdrntiTication  Division  without  final  disposition  noted  thereon.    If  no  final  disposition  is  avail- 
oWo  to  .irrestinp  agency,  aleo  obtain  subject's  riRht  four  finger  impressions  on  this  form,  complete  left  side 
nnd  forward  the  form  when  case  referred  to  proisecutor  and/ or  courts.    Agency  on  notice  as  to  final  disposition  should  complete  this 
form  and  suhmii  to:    Oiiector,  FBI,  Wojhinqton,  D.  C.    20537,  Allenlion:    Identification  Division. 
(See  inslnirtions  on  reverse  side) 


FBI  No. 


IF   KNOWN 


Nome  on  Fingrrpnn:  Card  Subr.ntl.''ii  tr.  F\'A 

Last  F^r^l  Middl'- 

MU3T     COftHeSPONO    WITH    NAME    ON 
ARREST     FINSERPRINT     CURO. 


If  FBI  No.  i:nl<nn\Mi.  pumi'ih: 

Date  of  Binh     MOMTM-  PtkV-  VeAI»  .Sen 


cl«;rcnl.on  IF  KWQWN-A5  gUOT^O    9Y  fSI 


State  BureRu  No. 


IF    APPLICA&LE 


Contributor  of  FinRcrprnt^ 


SPECiflEN  FINAL 

AGEMCY  &ue>iirriNa  *,nRe%r  ritiiaeuMtiKT  cars 

(GiviE    OOHPLCTE  ADSOSSS    lUCUtOtNb  Zip  COBe) 


Final  r>iRposition  &  Date 

(If  convicted  or  subject  pleaded  guilty  to  lesser  charge,  includa 
this  modification  with  disposition.) 


I.  iNcuJoe  riMfti.  DisposmoN   4  o*.Te  por. 

GNCH    OFFEMSE    CMARGSD    &r   ARAEST. 
*,  INOICATE    TYPe    OP  SENTENCS    IMPOSED  t 

e.o.,  coNSEomvs,  concurrent,  prpsation, 

ETC.,    IP     APPLICABLX. 


Arrest  Nn. 

AS   APPEARS   ON 

AKRESr  FlMGCAKtIur  CM9 


Date  Arrested  or  Received 
MC*(TM  -  DAY-  YEAA 


Offenaes  Charged  at  Arrest 

OFPCHSEft  MUST   Be  SJJvte   AS  THose 
APPCARitM    OH  ARREST   R»«6eRPa!Mr  CARP- 


This  Form  .Sulimitted  By: 

(Na.Tie.  Title,  Agency,  City  &  State) 
OFFIC£R.  OF  AfflZNCY   SUBn^im»a  PiWAU  REPORT. 
Ul^r  IN   IX»J}SR   SMMM  AOG^E. 

'osiTioN  mm 


Signature 


litle 


F]  COURT  ORDERED  EXPUNGEMENT: 

Return  yVrrest  Fingerprint  Cord  to  Contributing  Agency; 

Certified  or  Authenticated  Copy  of  Court  Order  Attached. 


^ight  Four  Fingers  Taken  Simultaneously 
'   IP    KjOCK.  IS  OlECXeO.    MAKS    CERVAlM   THAT 

oeimpiep  or  authenticated  copy  of  court 

OPOrR   IS   SECURELY    ATTAOieo   TO  THlb    FORK. 


ARRESTIMQ    AQENCY   MUST    OBTAIN 
OF   SUSOeCT    ON  TWIS    FORM.       ALL 

THIS    FORM    MOT  TO   BE  USED  IN 


f«GH 


FOUR    FINGER    ItlPRESSIONS 
IMFORf>^ATlON   REOUeSTSD  IS  eSSCNTlAL , 

-leU   OF    ARREST    FINGERPRINT  CARO. 


163 

addition,  the  FBI  has  been  making  entries  on  Federal  offenders  who  have  been 
arrested  since  January,  1970,  including  entries  for  the  District  of  Columbia.  As  of 
February  23,  1973,  there  were  288,207  CCH  records. 

I  am  submitting  the  following  document  for  the  record  which  will  furnish  de- 
tailed information  concerning  the  NCIC/CCH  Program.  (A  paper  entitled  "Na- 
tional Crime  Information  Center  (NCIC)  Computerized  Criminal  History  Pro- 
gram, Background,  Concept,  and  Policv  As  Approved  bv  NCIC  AdvisoryPolicy 
Board,  September  20,  1972.") 


*  CM     1»J1  0— 4ia-«JJ 

1-4  (Rjv.  :-20.  71) 


HASTEX 

UNITED  SVATSS  D=?.4RTMSWr  O?  JUSTSCS 


3-1-73  ,206' bj 


TKe  fi!!nvving  F8I  feci.iJ,  NUMBER  .305  9(4   C 

Infcrroction  shcvvn  on  tliis  Ideniificriti.rri  P.ecjrti  tsprssents  dafci 
VvilEP.v    L>iSFOS!riC.;i    !'•    f>:OT    SivO'VM    OS    FURT;;'"'    EXPLAl-i.'. 

Diiiki'u,  co.v.MUNiCA.'t  WITH  A;  f.;cv  coriiKicL'YiNC  T,:o 


,  is  furnlsliad  FOR  OrFICIA!.  USE  ONLY.' 
fvenish'^d  F3!  by  fingerprint  contributors. 

HON  OF  charge;  or  risfc-sition.  is 


COf~«:5'-/TC»  Of 

HAMZ  A«0  KyvSE.'! 

Asafsua  o« 

RECEIVED 

CKABGC 

O.iKXmOH  ' 

1)C  Crt  uf  Gen 

Frank  Jones 

2-10-6G 

inloxicatioii 

prob  6  mos 

Sessions 

Wash  IX 

DC  Jail 

Fraiik  Jones 

7-19-58 

burg  H  &i  riot 

VVa.sh  DC 

#105013 

I'D  W.ash  DC 

Fraiil-:  Tliomai; 
Jones  #231895 

2-26-69 

;ceep  &  selling 
&  CDW  (gun) 

released 

PD  Ball  Md 

John  Coleman 
#04.507 

8-4-69 

armed  robbery 

3  years  " 

SO  Faivfielcl 

John  EaVard 

3-14-72 

bur^^lary  ■ 

Pairoeli  Cal 

Doe  iflii5972 

oIMULAl 

'ED  RL'COr 

^D 

i::'F:iiTiFiCATroM  division 


164 


'..!29  CRer.  10-21-83) 


355974  C 


$y^^/^f^(L  yjcc^/- 


</ 


PROPERTY   OF 
FEDERAL    BUREAU    OF   INVESTIGATION 
Washington,  0.  C.   20537 

FINGERPRINT   IDENTIFICATION    FILE 

The  Background,  Concept,  and  Polic}-  paper,  beginning  on  page  10,  contains 
provisions  relating  to  the  security  and  confidentiaUty  of  information  in  the  NCIC 
interstate  criminal  history  exchange  system.  In  addition  to  these  provisions, 
system  operating  procedures  identify  each  record  with  the  agency  entering  the 
record  which  is  protected  by  computer  programming  from  change  by  any  other 
agency.  The  computer  is  progi'amed  to  make  certain  sufficient  data  is  included  in 
record  entries  to  prevent  erroneous  identification.  Communications  lines  are 
dedicated  to  NCIC  use. 

Former  Director  Hoover  has  kept  the  Congress  advised  of  the  development  of 
NCIC  in  testimony  before  the  House  Subcommittee  on  Appropriations  since  1966. 
On  March  17,  1971,  he  presented  detailed  information  concerning  the  CCH  File 
before  the  Subcommittee.  Also  on  March  17,  1971,  Assistant  Director  Dwight  J. 
Dalbey  presented  Mr.  Hoover's  statement  concerning  the  NCIC  and  the  CCH 
Program  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Constitutional  Rights  of  this  Committee. 

September  20,  1972. 

National  Crime  Information  Center  (NCIC)  Computerized  Criminal 
History  Program  Background,  Concept  and  Policy  as  Approved  by 
NCIC  Advisory  Policy  Board 

background  and  concept 

The  development  in  1971,  of  the  computerized  criminal  history-  file  as  part  of 
the  operating  NCIC  system  is  a  major  step  forward  in  making  this  system  of 
optimum  value  to  all  agencies  involved  in  the  administration  of  criminal  justice. 
It  is  felt  pertinent  at  this  time  to  restate  established  NCIC  concepts  and  operating 
policies,  as  well  as  new  steps  necessary  to  place  this  new  application  in  its  proj^er 
perspective.  Offender  criminal  historj*  has  alwaj-s  been  regarded  by  NCIC  as  the 
basic  file  in  a  criminal  justice  information  system.  From  the  beginning  of  NCIC 


165 

sensitivitj^  of  a  criminal  history  file  with  its  securitj^  and  coiifidentialit.v  consider- 
atioas  has  alwaj's  been  recognized  (Science  and  Technology  Task  Force  Report, 
The  President's  Commission  on  Law  Enforcement  and  Administration  of  Justice, 
1967). 

It  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  the  need  to  develop  an  offender  criminal  history 
exchange  with  the  states  that  will  rapidly  gain  the  confidence  of  all  users  in  terms 
of  system  integrit.y,  accuracy,  and  completeness  of  file  content.  This  type  of  dis- 
cipline is  necessary  if  a  nationwide  system  employing  the  necessarj'  standards  is  to 
succeed.  This  is  an  essential  consideration  during  the  record  conversion  stage 
even  though  available  data  is  limited,  and  becomes  an  essential  goal  in  an  operating 
on-line  system. 

From  its  inception,  the  concept  of  NCIC  has  been  to  serve  as  a  national  index 
and  network  for  50  state  law  enforcement  information  systems.  Thus,  the  NCIC 
does  not,  nor  is  it  intended  to,  eliminate  the  needs  for  such  systems  at  appropriate 
state  and  metropolitan  levels,  but  complements  these  systems.  The  concept  was 
built  on  varying  levels  and  types  of  information  in  metropoHtan  area,  state  and 
national  files.  In  such  an  overall  s.vstem  many  thousands  of  duplicate  indices  in 
local,  state  and  Federal  agencies  could  be  eliminated  and  all  agencies  share  in 
centralized  operational  information  from  a  minimum  number  of  computer  files. 
The  purpose  of  centralization  be.yond  economics  is  to  contend  with  increasing 
criminal  mobilitj'  and  recidivism  (criminal  repeating).  Computer  and  communica- 
tions technology  makes  this  possible  and,  in  fact,  demands  this  system  concept. 

Our  way  of  life  demands  that  local  and  state  government  retain  their  traditional 
responsibility  over  law  enforcement.  Computer  and  communications  technology 
such  as  NCIC  enhances  local  and  state  capability  to  preserve  this  tradition.  The 
NCIC  system  places  complete  responsibility  for  all  record  entries  on  each  agencj' — 
local,  state  or  Federal.  Likewise,  clearance,  modification  and  cancellation  of  these 
records  are  also  the  responsibility  of  the  entering  agency.  Each  record,  for  all 
practical  purposes,  remains  the  possession  of  the  entering  agency.  However,  each 
local  and  state  agenc,y  in  one  state  can  immediately  share  information  contributed 
by  another  agency  in  another  state.  This  continuity  of  information  greatly  in- 
creases the  capabilit}'  of  local  and  state  agencies  in  working  across  state  lines 
which  have  in  the  past  been  barriers  to  mutual  state  and  local  law  enforcement 
efforts. 

The  NCIC  system,  which  is  the  first  use  of  computer/communications  tech- 
nology to  link  together  local,  state  and  Federal  governments,  established  the 
control  terminal  concept.  In  a  national  S3'stem,  although  the  individual  users  are 
responsible  for  the  accuracy,  validitj-,  and  completeness  of  their  record  entries 
and  their  action  decisions  on  positive  responses  to  inquiries,  more  stringent  con- 
trols with  respect  to  S3"stem  discipline  are  required.  A  control  terminal  on  the 
NCIC  systein  is  a  state  agency  or  a  large  core  city  ser\icing  statewide  or  metro- 
politan area  users.  These  control  terminals,  rapidly  becoming  computer  based, 
share  the  responsibility  in  the  national  network  in  monitoring  sjstem  use,  en- 
forcing discipline  and  assuring  system  procedures  and  policies  are  met  b.y  all 
users.  The  NCIC  s.vstem  through  its  related  control  terminals  and  the  advent  of 
criminal  history,  has  a  potential  of  over  4.5,000  local,  state  and  Federal  criminal 
justice  user  terminals.  Tradition,  computer/communications  technolog.y,  and  the 
potential  size  of  the  NCIC  network  and  its  related  state  systems  demand  that  its 
management  responsibility  be  shared  with  the  states.  To  accomiiiish  this  objective 
an  NCIC  Working  Comniittee  and  an  Advisory  Polic}'  Board  were  established. 

From  the  beginning,  the  NCIC  sj'steni  concept  has  been  to  encourage  and 
develop  strong  central  state  information  and  communications  services.  Through 
mandatory  reporting  laws  at  the  state  level,  essential  centralized  files  can  be 
established  for  both  operational  and  administrative  use.  The  administrative  or 
statistical  use  of  computer  based  files  is  a  vital  consideration.  A  state  cannot  make 
intelligent  decisions  about  crime  problems  or  criminal  justice  effectiveness  unless 
it  can  statistically  document  tlie  extent  and  nature  of  crime  and  the  success  or 
failure  of  the  criminal  justice  system  in  its  treatment  of  offenders.  Thus,  the 
planning  of  these  systems  must  incorporate  means  of  obtaining  the  necessary 
statistical  data  as  a  by-product  of  the  operational  information  being  processed 
on  a  day-to-day  basis.  This  is  particularh-  true  with  respect  to  the  criminal  his- 
tory application. 

Of  further  significance  are  the  centralized  police  statistics  programs  (Uniform 
Crime  Reports)  now  operating  in  10  states  whereby  comparative  crime  statistics 
are  furnished  to  the  national  level  through  a  central  state  agenc.y.  This  statistical 
data  furnished  to  the  FBI  for  national  use  is  merely  a  by-product  of  a  more  de- 


166 

tailed  state  program  which  is  an  integral  part  of  state  law  enforcement  informa- 
tion services. 

Offender  criminal  history,  i.e.,  the  physical  and  numeiical  de'^criptors  of  an 
arrested  person  and  the  basic  recorded  actions  of  the  criminal  jnstice  agencies  with 
respect  to  the  offender  and  the  charge,  is  vital  information  in  day-to-day  criminal 
justice  operations.  FBI  studies  as  published  in  Uniform  Crime  Reports  have  doc- 
umented the  extent  of  criminal  repeating  by  the  serious  offender,  i.e.,  an  average 
criminal  career  of  10  years  and  6  arrests.  With  respect  to  criminal  mobility,  about 
70  percent  of  the  rearrests  (criminal  repeating)  will  be  within  the  same  state. 
Therefore,  an  offender  criminal  history  file  in  scope  and  use  is  essentially  a  state 
file  and  a  state  need. 

There  is,  however,  sul)stantial  interstate  criminal  mobility  (25-30  percent) 
which  requires  sharing  of  information  from  state  to  state.  There  is  no  way  to 
]30sitively  identif.y  a  first  offender  who  will  later  commit  a  crime  in  another  state. 
The  approach  then  to  a  national  index  must  be  an  empirical  judgment  that  all 
state  offenders  committing  serious  and  other  significant  violations  must  be  in- 
cluded in  the  national  index.  As  in  other  aspects  of  the  system,  the  determination 
of  which  criminal  acts  constitute  serious  or  significant  violations  resides  with  each 
individual  state.  A  national  index  is  required  to  efficiently  and  effectively  coordi- 
nate the  exchange  of  criminal  history  among  state  and  Federal  jurisdictions  and 
to  contend  with  interstate  criminal  mobility. 

The  development  of  offender  criminal  history  for  interstate  exchange  required 
the  establishment  of  standardized  offense  classifications,  definitions,  and  data 
elements.  Felony  and  misdemeanor  definitions  cannot  be  used  in  this  approach 
because  of  the  wide  variation  in  state  statutes.  In  fact,  the  definitions  of  a  specific 
crime  by  state  penal  codes  also  vary  widely.  For  full  utilitj^  and  intelligent  de- 
cision-making, offender  criminal  history  requires  a  common  undei-standing  of  the 
terminology  used  to  describe  the  criminal  act  and  the  criminal  justice  action. 

Computerized  offender  criminal  history  must  have  the  criminal  fingerprint  card 
taken  at  the  time  of  arrest  as  the  basic  source  document  for  all  record  entries 
and  updates.  This  is  necessary  in  order  to  preserve  the  personal  identification 
integrity  of  the  system.  While  the  criminal  history  file  in  the  NCIC  system  will 
be  open  to  all  law  enforcement  terminals  for  inquiry,  only  the  state  agency  can 
enter  and  u]3date  a  record.  This  provides  for  better  control  over  the  national  file 
and  its  content.  It  relies  on  a  central  state  identification  function  to  eliminate 
duplications  of  records  and  provides  the  best  statistical  opportunity  to  link 
together  multi-jurisdictional  criminal  history  at  local  and  county  level. 

Using  the  NCIC  concept  of  centralized  state  information  systems,  another 
requirement  is  to  change  the  flow  of  criminal  fingerprint  cards.  Local  and  county 
contributors  wdthin  a  state  must  in  an  ultimate  operational  system  forward 
criminal  fingerprint  cards  to  the  FBI  through  the  central  state  identification 
function.  Where  the  state  can  make  the  identification  with  a  prior  print  in  file, 
it  can  take  the  necessary  action  in  a  compaterized  file  without  submission  to  the 
FBI.  Where  the  state  cannot  make  the  identification,  the  fingerprint  card  must 
be  submitted  to  the  national  identification  file.  Again,  the  system's  concept  is 
that  a  fingerprint  card  must  be  the  source  document  for  a  record  entry  and  u])date, 
but  now  it  will  be  retained  at  the  state  or  national  level.  This  approach  eliminates 
considerable  duplication  of  effort  in  identifying  fingerprint  submissions,  particu- 
larly criminal  repeaters  at  state  and  national  level.  It  will  be  the  responsibility 
of  each  state  to  determine  its  own  capability  in  regard  to  servicing  intrastate 
criminal  fingerprint  cards.  Whenever  a  state  has  determined  that  it  is  ready  to 
assume  processing  all  intrastate  criminal  fingerprint  cards,  the  state  agency  will 
inform  contributors  within  the  state  to  forward  all  criminal  fingerprint  submis- 
sions to  the  state  identification  bureau,  including  those  which  were  previously 
directed  to  the  FBI,  and  will  also  so  inform  the  FBI.  Since  the  success  of  the  sys- 
tem concept  depends  on  this  procedure  all  possible  measures  will  be  taken  to 
assure  compliance. 

As  pointed  out  earlier,  the  Justification  for  a  national  index  is  to  efficiently  and 
effectively  coordinate  .50  state  systems  for  offender  criminal  history  exchange. 
The  need  is  to  identify  the  interstate  mobile  offender.  FBI  statistics  indicate  that 
about  70  percent  of  the  offenders  confine  their  activity  to  a  single  state.  These 
may  be  described  as  single  state  offenders.  Another  25  to  30  percent  of  the  offenders 
commit  crimes  supported  by  fingerprint  cards  in  two  or  more  states.  FBI  statistics 
with  respect  to  more  serious  violators  indicate  that  on  an  average,  one-third 
accumulate  arrests  in  three  or  more  states  over  a  6  to  Q-j^ear  period.  Offenders 
with  arrests  in  two  or  more  states  may  be  described  as  multiple  state  offenders. 

In  either  event  sufficient  data  must  be  stored  in  the  national  index  to  provide 


167 

all  users,  particularly  those  users  who  do  not  have  the  capability  to  fully  partic- 
ipate in  the  beginning  system,  the  information  necessarj^  to  meet  basic  criminal 
justice  needs. 

In  order  for  the  system  to  trulj'  become  a  national  system,  each  state  must 
create  a  fully  operational  computerized  state  criminal  history-  capability  within 
the  state  before  July  1,  1975. 

Although  the  present  need  for  the  criminal  history  file  and  the  unequal  devel- 
opment of  state  criminal  justice  s.ystems  dictate  a  simple  initial  index  structure, 
the  ultimate  system  should  differentiate  between  "multiple  state"  and  "single 
state"  offenders  with  respect  to  the  level  of  residency  of  detailed  criminal  history. 
"Single  state"  offenders  would  be  those  whose  criminal  justice  interactions  have 
been  non-Federal  and  confined  to  a  single  state  having  a  computerized  criminal 
history  system. 

The  interstate  exchange  of  computerized  criminal  history  records  requires  a 
standard  set  of  data  elements  and  standard  definitions.  The  system  design  must 
be  built  upon  user  needs  for  all  criminal  justice  agencies  and  end  with  user  input. 
It  should  be  designed  on  what  it  is  possible  to  achieve  in  the  future  and  initially^ 
operate  on  the  information  and  hardware  available  at  all  levels  at  the  present 
time.  While  the  projiosed  formats  and  standardized  offense  classifications  and 
definitions  seem  ambitious,  to  approach  a  system  of  this  potential  scope  and  size 
without  a  plan  to  substantially'  improve  the  identification/criminal  historj^  flow 
would  be  a  serious  error. 

System  concept 

As  pointed  out  earlier  the  concept  of  NCIC  since  initial  planning  in  1966  has 
been  to  complement  state  and  metropolitan  area  systems.  Although  computer/ 
communications  technology  is  a  powerful  tool,  a  single  national  file  of  detailed 
law  enforcement  data  was  viewed  as  being  unmanageable  and  ineffective  in 
serving  the  broad  and  specialized  needs  of  local,  state  and  Federal  agencies.  The 
potential  size  and  scope  of  a  national  s^'stem  of  computerized  criminal  history 
involving  45,000  criminal  justice  agencies  demands  joint  management  bv  the 
states  and  the  FBI/NCIC. 

Necessity  for  State  files 

(1)  Seventy  percent  of  the  criminal  history  records  will  be  single  state  in  nature, 
i.e.,  all  criminal  activity  limited  to  one  state  and,  therefore,  "the  responsibility 
of  and  of  primary  interest  to  that  state, 

(2)  State  centralization  can  tie  together  the  frequent  intrastate,  multijurisdic- 
tional  arrests  <jf  the  same  offender  and  thus  eliminate  imnecessary  duplication 
of  files  at  municipal  and  county  level.  This  will  obviously  result  in  economies, 

(3)  A  state  system  with  a  detailed  data  base,  because  of  its  manageable  size^ 
can  best  satisfy  most  local  and  state  criminal  justice  agency  information  needs 
both  on  and  off  line.  The  national  file  then  complements  rather  than  duplicates 
the  state  file. 

(4)  A  state  with  a  central  data  base  of  criminal  history  has  the  necessary 
statistical  information  for  overall  planning  and  evaluation  including  specialized 
needs  unrelated  to  the  national  file, 

(5)  State  control  of  record  entry  and  updating  to  national  file  more  clearly 
fixes  responsibility,  offers  greater  accuracy,  and  more  rapid  development  of  the 
necessary  standards, 

(6)  A  central  state  system  provides  for  shared  management  responsibility  with 
FBI/NCIC  in  monitoring  intrastate  use  of  the  NCIC,  including  security  and 
confidentiality, 

(7)  By  channeling  the  criminal  identification  flow  through  the  state  to  the 
national  level  eliminates  substantial  duplication  of  effort  at  national  and  state 
levels. 

Compatihilify  of  State  and  national  files 

(1)  To  contend  with  criminal  repeating  and  mobility,  a  national  index  of  state 
and  Federal  offender  criminal  history  is  necessary,  i!e.,  a  check  of  one  central 
index  rather  than  51  other  jurisdictions, 

(2)  The  duplication  does  provide  a  liackup  to  recreate  either  a  national  or  state 
file  in  the  event  of  a  disaster,  a  crosscheck  for  accuracy,  validity,  and  completeness 
as  well  as  a  more  efficient  use  of  the  network, 

(3)  The  NCIC  record  format  and  data  elements  for  comiDuterized  criminal 
history  afford  a  standard  for  interstate  exchange, 


168 

(4)  In  the  developed  S3^stem  single  state  records  (70  percent)  will  become  an 
abbreviated  criminal  history  record  in  the  national  index  with  switching  capability' 
for  the  states  to  obtain  the  detailed  record.  Such  an  abbreviated  record  should  con- 
tain sufficient  data  to  satisfy  most  inquiry  needs,  i.e.,  identification  segment, 
originating  agency,  charge,  date  disposition  of  each  criterion  offense  and  current 
status.  This  will  substantially  reduce  storage  costs  and  eliminate  additional 
duplication. 

Program  development 

The  proper  development  of  the  Computerized  Criminal  History  Program,  in 
terms  of  its  impact  on  criminal  justice  efficiency  and  effectiveness  and  dollar  costs, 
is  vital.  At  the  present  time  there  is  a  wide  range  of  underdevelopment  among  the 
states  in  essential  services  such  as  identification,  information  flow,  i.e.,  court  dispsoi- 
tion  reporting  programs,  computer  systems  and  computer  skills. 

(1)  NCIC  implemented  computerized  criminal  history  in  November,  1971, 
requiring  the  full  interstate  format  for  both  single  and  multi-state  records  be- 
cause : 

(a)  This  enables  all  states  to  obtain  the  benefits  of  the  Computerized 
Criminal  History  Program. 

(b)  This  provides  all  states  time  to  develop  and  implement  the  necessary 
i-elated  programs  to  fully  participate. 

(c)  Familiarity  with  and  adherence  to  all  system  standards  will  speed  pro- 
gram development. 

(2)  It  is  understood  that  the  NCIC  Computerized  Criminal  History  Program 
will  be  continually  evaluated,  looking  toward  the  implementation  of  single  state, 
multi-slate  concept. 

Levels  of  ■participation 

(1)  State  maintains  central  computerized  criminal  justice  information  system 
interfaced  with  NCIC.  The  state  control  terminal  has  converted  an  initial  load  of 
criminal  history  and  these  records  are  stored  at  state  and  national  lev^els.  The  state 
control  terminal  has  the  on-line  capability  of  entering  new  records  into  state  and 
NCJC  storage,  as  well  as  the  abilits'  to  update  the  computer  stored  records. 
Through  the  state  system  local  agencies  can  inquire  on-line  for  criminal  history  at 
state  and  natit»nal  levels.  This  is  a  ful].y  participating  NCIC  state  control  terminal. 

(2)  State  maintains  an  electronic  switch  linking  local  agencies  for  the  purpose  of 
administrative  message  traffic  and  on-line  access  to  NCIC  through  a  high-speed 
interface.  No  data  storage  at  state  level;  however,  criminal  history  records  are 
stored  in  NCIC'  and  new  records  entered  and  updated  by  the  state  control  terminal 
from  a  manual  interface  to  the  electronic  switch. The  switch  provides  local  agencies 
direct  access  to  NCIC  for  criminal  history  summary  information  and  other  files. 

(3)  The  state  maintains  manual  terminal  on  low-speed  line  to  NCIC.  State 
control  terminal  services  local  agencies  off-line,  i.e.,  radio,  teletype  and  telephone. 
Since  volume  of  computerized  criminal  history  is  relatively  small  the  state  control 
terminal  may  convert  criminal  history  records,  enter  and  ujidate  these  records  in 
NCIC.  No  computer  storage  at  state  level. 

Levels  2  and  -3  are  interim  measures  until  such  time  as  the  state  agency  secures 
the  necessary  hardware  to  fully  participate.  At  that  time  the  state  records  stored  in 
NCIC  will  Idc  copied  in  machine  form  and  returned  to  the  originating  state  to 
implement  the  state  system. 

SECURITY  AND   CONFIDENTIALITY 

I.  Information  in  FBI/NCIC  Interstate  Criminal  History  Exchange  System 

A.  Entries  of  criminal  history  data  into  the  NCIC  computer  and  updating  of 
the  computerized  record  will  be  accejjted  only  from  an  authorized  state  or  Federal 
criminal  justice  control  terminal.  Terminal  devices  in  other  criminal  justice  agen- 
cies will  be  limited  to  inquiries  and  responses  thereto.  An  authorized  state  control 
terminal  is  defined  as  a  state  criminal  justice  agency  on  the  NCIC  sj'stem  servicing 
statewide  criminal  justice  users  with  respect  to  criminal  history  data.  Control 
terminals  iji  Federal  agencies  will  be  limited  to  those  invc)lved  in  the  administra- 
tion of  criminal  justice  and/or  having  law  enforcement  responsibilities. 

B.  Data  stored  in  the  NCIC  computer  will  include  personal  identification  data, 
as  well  as  public  record  data  concerning  each  of  the  individual's  major  steps 
through  the  criminal  justice  jjrocess.  A  record  concerning  an  individual  will  be 
initiated  u])on  the  first  arrest  of  that  individual  for  an  offense  meeting  the  criteria 
established  for  the  national  file.  Each  arrest  will  initiate  a  cycle  in  the  record. 


169 

which  cycle  will  be  complete  upon  the  offender's  discharge  from  the  criminal 
justice  process  in  dispositioii  of  that  arrest. 

C.  Each  cycle  in  an  individual's  record  will  be  based  ui)on  fingerprint  identifica- 
tion. Ultimately  the  criminal  fingerprint  card  documenting  this  identification  will 
be  stored  at  the  state  level  or  in  the  case  of  a  Federal  offense,  at  the  national  level. 
At  least  one  criminal  fingerprint  card  must  be  in  the  files  of  the  FBI  Identification 
Division  to  support  the  C(jmputerized  criminal  history  record  in  the  national 
index. 

D.  The  data  with  respect  to  current  arrests  entered  in  the  national  index  will 
be  restricted  to  serious  and/or  significant  violations.  Excluded  from  the  national 
index  will  be  juvenile  offenders  as  defined  by  state  law  (unless  the  juvenile  is  tried 
in  court  as  an  adult) ;  charges  of  drimkenness  and/or  vagrancy;  certain  public  order 
offenses,  i.e.,  disturbing  the  peace,  curfew  violations,  loitering,  false  fire  alarm; 
traffic  violations  (except  data  will  be  stored  on  arrests  for  manslaughter,  driving 
under  the  influence  of  drugs  or  liquor,  and  "hit  and  run") ;  and  non-specific  charges 
of  suspicion  or  investigation. 

E.  Data  included  in  the  system  must  be  limited  to  that  with  the  characteristics 
of  public  record,  i.e.; 

1.  Piccorded  by  officers  of  public  agencies  or  divisions  thereof  directly  and 
principally  concerned  with  crime  prevention,  apprehension,  adjudication  or 
rehabilitation  of  offenders. 

2.  Recording  must  have  been  made  in  satisfaction  of  public  duty. 

3.  The  public  duty  must  have  been  directly  relevant  to  criminal  justice 
responsibilities  of  the  agency. 

F.  Social  history  data  should  not  be  contained  in  the  interstate  criminal  history 
system,  e.g.,  narcotic  civil  commitment  or  mental  hygiene  commitment.  If,  how- 
ever, such  commitments  are  part  of  the  criminal  justice  process,  then  they  should 
be  part  of  the  system. 

Criminal  history  records  and  other  law  enforcement  operational  files  should  not 
be  centrally  stored  or  controlled  in  "data  bank"  systems  containing  non-criminal 
justice  related  information,  e.g.,  welfare,  hospital,  education,  revenue,  voter 
registration,  and  other  such  non-criminal  files  necessary  for  an  orderly  process  in  a 
dem.ocratic  society. 

G.  Each  control  terminal  agency  shall  follow  the  law  or  practice  of  the  state  or, 
in  the  case  of  a  Federal  control  terminal,  the  applicable  Federal  statute,  with 
respect  to  purging/expunging  data  entered  by  that  agency  in  the  nationally  stored 
data.  Data  may  be  purged  or  expunged  only  by  the  agency  originally  entering  that 
data.  If  the  offender's  entire  record  stored  at  the  national  level  originates  with  one 
control  terminal  and  all  cycles  are  piirged/expunged  by  that  agencj',  ail  informa- 
tion, including  personal  identification  data  will  be  removed  from  the  computerized 
NCIC  file. 

II.  Steps  to  Assure  Accuracy  of  Stored  Information 

A.  The  FBI/NCIC  and  state  control  terminal  agencies  will  make  continuous 
checks  on  records  being  entered  in  the  system  to  assure  system  standards  and 
criteria  are  being  met. 

B.  Control  terminal  agencies  shall  adopt  a  careful  and  permanent  program  of 
data  verification  including: 

1.  Systematic  audits  conducted  to  insure  that  files  have  been  regularly  and 
accurately  vipdated. 

2.  Where  errors  or  points  of  incompleteness  are  detected  the  control  terminal 
shall  take  immediate  action  to  correct  or  complete  the  NCIC  record  as  well 
as  its  own  state  record. 

III.  Who  May  Access  Criminal  History  Data 

A.  Direct  access,  meaning  the  ability  to  access  the  NCIC  computerized  file  by 
means  of  a  terminal  device,  will  be  permitted  only  for  criminal  justice  agencies 
in  the  discharge  of  their  official,  mandated  responsibilities.  Agencies  that  will  be 
permitted  direct  access  to  NCIC  criminal  history  data  include: 

1.  Police  forces  and  departments  at  all  governmental  levels  that  are  re- 
sponsible for  enforcement  of  general  criminal  laws.  This  should  be  understood 
to  include  highway  patrols  and  similar  agencies. 

2.  Prosecutive  agencies  and  departments  at  all  governmental  levels. 

3.  Courts  at  all  governmental  levels  with  a  criminal  or  equivalent  juris- 
diction. 

4.  Correction  departments  at  all  government  levels,  including  corrective 
institutions  and  probation  departments. 


170 

■15.  Parole  commissions  and  agencies  at  all  governmental  levels. 

'6.  Agencies  at  all  governmental  levels  which  have  as  a  principal  function 
the  collection  and  provision  of  fingerprint  identification  information. 

7.  State  control  terminal  agencies  which  have  as  a  sole  function  by  statute 
the  development  and  operation  of  a  criminal  justice  information  sj'stem. 

IV.  Control  of  Criminal  Justice  Systems 

All  computers,  electronic  switches  and  manual  terminals  interfaced  directly 
with  the  NCIC  computer  for  the  interstate  exchange  of  criminal  history  infor- 
mation must  be  under  the  management  control  of  criminal  justice  agencies 
authorized  as  control  terminal  agencies.  Similarh^,  satellite  computers  and  manual 
terminals  accessing  NCIC  through  a  control  terminal  agency  computer  must  be 
under  the  management  control  of  a  criminal  justice  agency.  Management  control 
is  defined  as  that  applied  by  a  criminal  justice  agency  with  the  authority  to 
emplo.y  and  discharge  personnel,  as  well  as  to  set  and  enforce  policy  concerning 
computer  operations.  Management  control  includes,  but  is  not  limited  to,  the 
direct  supervision  of  equipment,  systems  design,  programming  and  operating 
procedures  necessarj'  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  computer- 
ized criminal  history  program.  Management  control  must  remain  full}'  inde- 
pendent of  noncriminal  justice  data  systems  and  criminal  justice  systems  shall 
be  primarily  dedicated  to  the  service  of  the  criminal  justice  community. 

In  those  instances  where  criminal  justice  agencies  are  utilizing  equipment  and 
personnel  of  a  noncriminal  justice  agency  for  NCIC/CCH  purposes,  the  following 
criteria  will  apply  in  meeting  the  above  management  control  provisions: 

1.  The  hardv.are,  including  processor,  communications  control,  and  storage 
devices,  to  be  utilized  for  the  handling  of  criminal  history  data  must  be  dedicated 
to  the  criminal  justice  function. 

2.  The  criminal  justice  agency  must  exercise  management  control  with  regard 
to  the  operating  of  the  aforementioned  equipment  by: 

(a)  having  a  written  agreement  with  the  noncriminal  justice  agencj' 
operating  the  data  center  providing  the  criminal  justice  agency  authority  to 
select  and  supervise  personnel, 

(b)  having  the  authorit.y  to  set  and  enforce  policy  concerning  computer 
operations,  and 

(c)  having  budgetary  control  with  regard  to  personnel  and  equipment,  in 
the  criminal  justice  agencj-. 

The  Board  endorses  the  following  statement  by  the  Director  of  the  FBI  before 
the  Subcommittee  on  Constitutional  Rights  on  March  17,  1971.  "If  law  enforce- 
ment or  other  criminal  justice  agencies  are  to  be  responsible  for  the  confidentiality 
of  the  information  in  computerized  systems,  then  they  must  have  complete  man- 
agement control  of  the  hardware  and  the  people  who  use  and  operate  the  system. 
These  information  systems  should  be  limited  to  the  function  of  serving  the  crim- 
inal justice  communitj"  at  all  levels  of  government — local,  state  and  Federal." 

The  following  are  considerations: 

1.  Success  of  law  enforcement/criminal  justice  depends  first  on  its  manpower, 
adequac}^  and  quality,  and  secondlj-,  information  i^roperiy  processed,  retrievable 
when  needed  and  used  for  decision  making.  Law  enforcement  can  no  more  give 
up  control  of  its  information  than  it  can  its  manpower. 

2.  Computerized  information  systems  are  made  up  of  a  number  of  integral 
parts;  namely,  the  users,  the  operating  staff,  computers  and  related  hardware, 
communications  and  terminal  devices.  For  effectiveness,  management  control 
of  the  entire  system  cannot  be  divided  between  functional  and  nonfunctional 
agencies.  Likewise,  the  long-standing  law  enforcement  fingerprint  identification 
process  is  an  essential  element  in  the  criminal  justice  system. 

3.  Historically,  law  enforcement/criminal  justice  has  been  responsible  for  the 
confidentiality  of  its  information.  This  responsibility  cannot  be  assumed  if  its 
data  base  is  in  a  computer  sj'stem  out  of  law  enforcement/criminal  justice  control. 

4.  The  function  of  public  safety  and  criminal  justice  demands  the  highest  order 
of  priority,  24  liours  a  day.  Experience  has  shown  that  this  prioritj^  is  best  achieved 
and  maintained  through  dedicated  systems. 

5.  A  national/statewide  public  safety  and  criminal  justice  computer/communi- 
cations system,  because  of  priority,  scope  including  system  discipline,  and  informa- 
tion needs,  on  and  off  line,  will  require  full  service  of  hardware  and  operating  per- 
sonnel. 

6.  Historically,  police  and  criminal  justice  information  have  not  been  inter- 
mingled or  centrally  stored  with  noncriminal  social  files,  such  as  revenue,  welfare, 


171 

and  medical,  etc.  This  concept  is  even  more  valid  with  respect  to  computerized 
information  systems  at  both  national  and  state  levels. 

7.  These  sj'stems,  particularh'  public  safety  and  criminal  justice  information 
sj'stems,  must  be  functional  and  user  oriented  if  they  are  to  develop  effectively. 
Computer  skills  are  a  part  of  the  system.  Ineffective  systems  resvdt  not  only  in 
the  greatest  dollar  loss  but  also  costs  in  lives. 

V.  Use  of  System-Derived  Criminal  History  Data 

A.  Criminal  historj-  data  on  an  individual  from  the  national  computerized  file 
will  be  made  available  outside  the  Federal  government  to  criminal  justice  agencies 
for  criminal  justice  purposes.  This  precludes  the  dissemination  of  such  data  for  use 
in  connection  with  licensing  or  local  or  state  employment,  other  than  with  a 
criminal  justice  agenc}',  or  for  other  uses  unless  such  dissemination  is  pursuant  to 
state  and  Federal  statutes.  There  are  no  exceptions. 

B.  The  use  of  data  for  research  should  acknowledge  a  fundamental  commitment 
to  respect  individvial  privac.v  interests  with  the  identification  of  subjects  divorced 
as  fulh-  as  possible  from  the  data.  Proposed  programs  must  be  reviewed  by  the 
NCIC  or  control  terminal  agency  to  assure  their  propriety  and  to  determine  that 
proper  securit}'  is  being  provided.  All  noncriminal  justice  agency  requests  involv- 
ing the  identities  of  individuals  in  conjunction  with  their  national  criminal  history 
records  must  be  approved  bj'  the  Advisory  Policj'  Board. 

The  NCIC  or  control  terminal  agency  must  retain  rights  to  monitor  any  research 
project  approved  and  to  terminate  same  if  a  violation  of  the  above  principles  is 
detected.  Research  data  shall  be  provided  off  line  only. 

C.  Should  any  information  be  verified  that  any  agency  has  received  criminal 
historj'  information  and  has  disclosed  that  information  to  an  unauthorized  source, 
immediate  action  will  be  taken  b.y  NCIC  to  discontinue  criminal  history  service  to 
that  agency,  through  the  control  terminal  if  appropriate,  until  the  situation  is 
corrected. 

D.  Agencies  should  be  instructed  that  their  rights  to  direct  access  encompass 
only  requests  reasonably  connected  with  their  criminal  justice  responsibilities. 

E.  The  FBI/NCIC  and  control  terminals  will  make  checks,  as  necessary,  con- 
cerning inquiries  made  of  the  s.vstem  to  detect  possible  inisuse. 

F.  The  establishing  of  adequate  state  and  Federal  criminal  penalties  for  mis- 
use of  criminal  history  data  is  endorsed. 

G.  Detailed  computerized  criminal  history  printouts  shall  contain  caveats 
to  the  effect,  "This  response  based  on  numeric  identifier  only"  and  "Official  use 
only — arrest  data  based  on  fingerprint  identification  by  submitting  agenc.y  or 
FBI."  These  caveats  will  be  generated  by  the  FBI,  NCIC  or  state  control  termi- 
nal's computer  or  may  be  preprinted  on  paper  stock. 

VI.  Right  to  Challenge  Record 

The  person's  right  to  see  and  challenge  the  contents  of  his  record  shall  form  an 
integral  part  of  the  system  with  reasonable  administrative  procedures. 

VII.  Phj-sical,  Technical,  and  Personnel  Security  Measures 

The  following  securitj^  measures  ai-e  the  minimum  to  be  adopted  by  all  criminal 
justice  agencies  having  access  to  the  NCIC  Computerized  Criminal  History  File. 
These  measures  are  designed  to  pre\-ent  unauthorized  access  to  the  system  data 
and/or  unauthorized  use  of  data  obtained  from  the  computerized  file. 
A.   Computer  Centers: 

1.  The  criminal  justice  agency  computer  site  must  have  adequate  physical 
security  to  protect  against  any  unauthorized  personnel  gaining  access  to  the 
computer  equipment  or  to  any  of  the  stored  data. 

2.  Since  personnel  at  these  computer  centers  can  access  data  stored  in 
the  s3'Stem,  they  must  be  screened  thoroughly  under  the  authority  and  super- 
vision of  an  NCIC  control  terminal  agencj'.  (This  authoritj'  and  supervision 
ma  J'  be  delegated  to  responsible  criminal  justice  agenc.y  personnel  in  the 
case  of  a  satellite  computer  center  being  serviced  through  a  state  control 
terminal  agencj'.)  This  screening  will  also  apply  to  non-criminal  justice 
maintenance  or  technical  personnel. 

3.  All  visitors  to  these  computer  centers  must  be  accompanied  by  staff 
personnel  at  all  times. 

4.  Computers  having  access  to  the  NCIC  must  have  the  proper  computer 
instructions  written  and  other  built-in  controls  to  prevent  criminal  history 
data  from  being  accessible  to  any  terminals  other  than  authorized  terminals 


172 

5.  Computers  having  access  to  the  NCIC  must  maintain  a  record  of  all 
transactions  against  the  criminal  history  file  in  the  same  manner  the  NCIC 
computer  logs  all  transactions.  The  NCIC  identifies  each  specific  agency 
entering  or  receiving  information  and  maintains  a  record  of  those  transactions. 
This  transaction  record  must  be  monitored  and  reviewed  on  a  regular  basis 
to  detect  any  possible  misuse  of  criminal  history  data. 

6.  Each  state  control  terminal  shall  build  its  data  system  around  a  central 
computer,  through  which  each  inquiry  must  pass  for  screening  and  verifica- 
tion. The  configuration  and  operation  of  the  center  shall  provide  for  the 
integrity  of  the  data  base. 

B.  Communications: 

1.  Lines/channels  being  used  to  transmit  criminal  histor}^  information 
must  be  dedicated  solely  to  criminal  justice  use,  i.e.,  there  must  be  no  ter- 
minals belonging  to  agencies  outside  the  criminal  justice  system  sharing 
these  lines/channels. 

2.  Physical  security  of  the  lines/channels  must  be  protected  to  guard 
against  clandestine  devices  being  utilized  to  intercei^t  or  inject  S3'stem 
traffic. 

C.  Terminal  Devices  Having  Access  to  NCIC: 

1.  All  agencies  having  terminals  on  the  system  must  be  required  to  physi- 
call}'  place  these  terminals  in  secure  locations  within  the  authorized  agency. 

2.  The  agencies  having  terminals  with  access  to  criminal  history  must 
have  terminal  operators  screened  and  restrict  access  to  the  terminal  to  a 
minimum  number  of  authorized  employees. 

3.  Copies  of  criminal  history  data  obtained  from  terminal  devices  must  be 
afforded  seciu'ity  to  prevent  any  unauthorized  access  to  or  use  of  that  data. 

4.  All  remote  terminals  on  NCIC  Computerized  Criminal  History  will 
maintain  a  hard  copy  of  computerized  criminal  history  inquiries  with  notation 
of  individual  making  request  for  record  (90  days) . 

VIII.  Permanent  Committee  on  Securitj'  and  Confidentiality 

A  permanent  committee  has  been  established,  composed  of  NCIC  participants, 
which  group  will  address  the  problems  of  security  and  privacy  on  a  continuing 
basis  and  provide  guidance  to  the  NCIC  Advisor}'  Policy  Board.  Some  areas 
recommended  for  study  are : 

A.  The  consideration  of  criteria  for  the  purging  of  records,  i.e.,  deletion  of 
records  after  a  designated  period  of  criminal  inactivity  or  attainment  of  a  specified 
age,  etc. 

B.  The  consideration  of  criteria  for  qualification  of  non-criminal  justice  agencies 
for  secondary  access  to  criminal  history  data. 

C.  A  model  state  statute  for  protecting  and  controlling  data  in  any  future 
system  should  be  drafted  and  its  adoption  encouraged. 

IX.  Organization  and  Administration 

A.  Eftch  control  terminal  agency  shall  sign  a  written  ag-reement  with  the  NCIC 
to  conform  with  system  policy  before  participation  in  the  criminal  history  program 
is  permitted.  This  would  allow  for  control  over  the  data  and  give  assurance  of 
system  security. 

B.  In  each  state  the  control  terminal  agencj^  shall  prepare  and  execute  a  written 
agreement  containing  similar  provisions  to  the  agi-eement  by  the  states  and  NCIC 
with  each  criminal  justice  agency  having  a  terminal  device  capable  of  accessing 
criminal  history  data  within  that  state. 

C.  Eacli  state  criminal  justice  control  terminal  agency  is  responsible  for  the 
security  throughout  the  system  being  serviced  by  that  agency,  including  all 
places  where  terminal  devices  are  located. 

D.  A  system  security  officer  shall  be  designated  in  each  control  terminal  agency 
to  assure  all  necessary  physical,  personnel,  computer  and  communications  safe- 
guards prescribed  by  the  Advisory  Policy  Board  are  functioning  properly  in 
systems  operations. 

E.  The  rules  and  procedures  governing  direct  terminal  access  to  criminal  history 
data  shall  apply  equally  to  all  participants  in  the  system,  including  the  Federal 
and  state  control  terminal  agencies,  and  criminal  justice  agencies  having  access 
to  the  data  stored  in  the  system. 

F.  All  control  terminal  agencies  and  other  criminal  justice  agencies  having 
direct  access  to  computerized  criminal  history  data  from  the  system  shall  permit 
an  inspection  team  appointed  by  the  Security  and  Confidentiality  Committee  to 
conduct  apiDropriate  inquiries  with  regard  to  any  allegations  received  by  the 


173 

Committee  of  security  violations.  The  inspection  team  shall  include  at  least  one 
representative  of  the  FBI/i\  UlO.  All  results  of  the  investigation  conducted  shall 
be  reported  to  the  Advisory  Policy  Board  with  appropriate  recommendations. 
G.  Any  non-compliance  with  these  measures  shall  be  brought  to  the  immediate 
attention  of  the  Committee  which  shall  make  appropriate  recommendations  to 
the  Advisory  Policy  Board.  This  Board  has  the  responsibility^  for  recommending 
action,  including  the  discontinuing  of  service  to  enforce  compHance  with  system 
security  regulations. 

Senator  Tunney,  To  what  extent  do  you  expurgate  records  from 
files  that  are  kept? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  done  on  any  occasion  when  an  originating 
agency,  what  we  call  a  contributor,  requests  it.  As  a  practicing  at- 
torney in  Connecticut,  many  times  1  used  to  do  it,  ray  law  firm  used 
to  do  it — get  those  expunged — and  the  FBI  will  send  that  fingerprint 
card  back  nnmediately. 

Senator  Tunney.  But  what  I  am  thmking  of  is  in  reference  to  the 
files  that  3  ou  keep  on  individuals  and  which  are  made  available  to 
various  agencies.  To  what  extent  are  those  files  expurgated,  assuming 
now  that  nobody  makes  a  specific  request  for  expunging  anything  in 
the  record? 

Mr.  Gray.  Those  files  we  don't  expunge,  and  once  again  I  have  got 
to  give  you  an  explanation  so  you  have  a  feel  for  it,  I  would  like  to  show- 
it  to  you,  and  I  make  the  same  offer  that  I  made  to  the  House 
Judiciary  Committee,  that  any  member  who  wants  to  come  and  take 
a  visit  there,  Ml\  Ciiih'.nan,  to  se3— an/  m3mb3r  of  this  committee 
who  wants  to  take  the  opportimity  to  come  and  visit  and  see  how  we 
work — this  is  the  committee  of  Congress  in  the  Senate  that  we  should 
be  working  with.  But  we  make  no  eft'ort  to  expunge  because  of  the  fact 
that  a  lot  of  that  is  raw  material  and  it  does  not  represent  files  on 
individuals.  There  may  be  in  a  file  350  or  400  insertions  and  the}^  coukl 
be  on  any  number  of  individuals,  but  we  really  don't  monkey  around 
■with  that  unless  a  request  comes  in,  for  example,  for  a  name  check. 
We  will  go  to  the  indexes  and  we  will  find  out,  John  Q.  Doe,  and  we 
will  find  out  what  files,  what  nvunbered  files,  does  John  Doe  appear  in. 
We  will  have  to  go  down  through  all  those  general  files  and  find  out 
what  is  in  them.  Then  he  may  be  the  subject  of  an  investigation  and  we 
have  an  investigative  file  and  that  will  show  up  when  we  review  our 
indexes.  In  the  investigative  file  we  do  our  level  best  to  corroborate 
and  to  verify,  but  in  submitting  any  report  we  characterize  our  sources 
as  being  reliable  or  otherwise. 

We  actually  lean  over  backward  to  make  certain  that  we  are  being 
as  fair  and  as  objective  as  we  can  when  vve  submit  these,  and  we  put 
that  language  on  those  documents. 

Senator  Tunney.  To  which  agencies  do  you  make  these  investi- 
gative files  available? 

Mr.  Gray.  Are  3^ou  talking  about  the  investigations? 

Senator  Tunney.  Well,  the  reports,  let's  just  say,  to  which  agencies 
do  3"ou  make  individual  personnel  files  available? 

Mr.  Gray.  As  a  general  rule  we  don't.  We  don't  do  that  at  all, 
because  name  check  requests  come  in,  applicant  requests  come  in  to 
us,  or  there  could  be  an  ongoing  investigation  involving  individuals 
in  an  agency,  and  then  we  would  certainly  advise — if  we  look  in  our 
jurisdictional  handbooks  and  under  our  manual  of  rules  and  regu- 
lations we  see  that  for  this  particular  type  of  investigation,  these 

91-331—73 12 


174 

people  are  authorized  to  receive  reports.  It  could  be  the  Secretary  of 
the  Department  concerned.  It  could  also  be  the  Attorney  General. 
More  than  likely,  also  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  and,  if  it  is  a 
criminal  offense,  more  than  likely  also  the  Assistant  Attorney  Genei'al 
in  charge  of  the  Criminal  Division. 

Senator  Tunney.  How  about  local  police  departments? 

Mr.  Gray.  Local  police  departments? 

Senator  Tunney.   Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  We  just  don't  throw  those  files  around. 

Senator  Tunney.  If  they  requested  a  file? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir.  In  fact,  I  just  raised  Cain  with  regard  to  a 
situation  out  in,  I  believe  it  was,  our  Los  Angeles  area,  when  a  local 
policeman,  and  this  was  a  criminal  investigation,  was  allowed  to  even 
look  at  one  of  our  interview  reports  in  a  case. 

Senator  Tunney.  Will  you  send  3^our  arrest  record  portion  of  the 
file  to  banks  or  other  private 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Tunney.   (continuing).  Institutions 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Tunney  (continuing).  When  they  are  conducting  checks? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  the  way  that  happens  is  if  there  is  a  State  statute — 
banks  are  a  little  bit  different  because  they  come  under  some  of  the 
Federal  statutes. 

Senator  Tunney.  Well,  any  private  corporation,  do  you  ever 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  absolutely  not;  no,  sir.  You  know  this  has  been 
much  discussed  in  the  Congress,  and  resolutions  have  been  passed  and 
points  of  order  have  been  made  and  it  has  been  rather  thoroughly 
discussed  and  aired,  and  where  we  stand  right  now  is  if  a  State  has  a 
statute  that  provides  for  the  receipt  of  this  information  for  employ- 
ment and  licensing  purposes  and  the  Attorne}^  General  of  the  United 
States  approves,  we  ^\ill  furnish  it  for  that  purpose.  But  \\'hen  we  go  to 
computerized  criminal  histories  and  get  into  the  NCIC  area,  then  it 
only  goes  to  a  la^^■  enforcement  agency. 

Senator  Tunney.  So  what  you  are  saying  is,  no  private  group  has 
access  to  any  of  the  information  that  is  contained  in  your  personnel 
files? 

Mr.  Gray.  Our  policies  are  against  that.  We  have  a  record  of  all 
kinds  of  safeguards  to  prevent  that,  but  that  is  a  pretty  broad  question 
because  you  and  I  both  know  information  from  our  files  has  ended  up 
in  some  strange  places  for  varying  reasons,  and  I  don't  kno\v  all  of  the 
reasons  for  this.  You  can  think  of  the  media,  for  example,  as  one  area. 
But  no  private  group  has  access  insofar  as  we  can  prevent  them  from 
having  access. 

Senator  Tunney.  And  local  police  departments  have  access  only  if 
the  Attorney  General  appro^'es  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  This  is  for  State  employment  or  licensing  purposes. 
But  on  the  identification  record,  we  will  give  a  re])ort  back  to  a  local 
police  department  regarding  the  card,  the  fingerprint  card,  they  have 
sent  in,  but  we  won't  send  them  back  all  kinds  of  information  out  of 
our  files  as  distinguished  from  our  identification  records. 

Senator  Tunney.  What  kind  of  security  does  the  NCIC  data  baidi 
have? 

Mr.  Gray.  Very,  very  tight  security.  I  have  been  over  and  watched 
it  when  the  reject  button  goes  on,  and  the  reject  is  recorded.  Now, 


175 

there  is  no  question  about  it,  sophisticated  people  can  penetrate,  and 
have  penetrated,  computer  systems.  We  are  aware  of  this,  we  are  well 
aA\  are  of  this,  and  we  watch  for  it  all  the  time.  There  have  been  many 
technical  articles  written  on  penetration  of  computer  systems.  In  fact, 
some  people,  some  of  the  experts,  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  you  can't 
design  a  computer  system  that  thej'  can't  penetrate. 

Senator  Tunney.  How  many  people  have  access  to  the  NCIC 
data  bank? 

Mr.  Gray.  What  part  of  it  are  you  talking  about,  sir?  You  remem- 
ber I  read  off  a  list  of  items. 

vSenator  Tunney.  Yes.  Well,  say  on  personal  files? 

Mr.  Gray.  Only  those  who  have  terminals,  and  those  are  all  law 
enforcement  agencies,  those  terminals  are  right  there  under  the  control 
of  criminal  justice  agencies.  This  is  one  of  the  requirements. 

Senator  Tunney.  Do  you  knovr,  offhand,  ho^^  many  there  are? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  say  roughly  right  now,  the  rough  figure  of  the 
law  enforcement  agencies  ha^'ing  access  tlu-ough  terminals  in  their 
State — I  am  thinking  now  in  terms  of  the  State  system,  usually  there 
is  a  State  agency  of  some  kind  that  has  a  terminal  in  that  State — 
roughly  6,000  police  departments  in  the  United  States. 

Senator  Tunney.  Is  there  any  way  of  monitoring  the  requests  for 
information  to  make  sure  that  people  ^N'ho  are  appropriately  charged 
with  enforcement  of  the  la^\'  are  the  ones  who  are  requesting  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir;  there  are  all  kinds  of  codes,  and,  as  I  mentioned 
earlier,  Senator,  you  can  stand  right  there  in  front  of  the  computer  and 
see  a  reject;  it  \\ill  just  stop. 

I  don't  w'ant  to  mislead  you,  and  I  don't  want  you  to  think  that  we 
claim  our  computer  system  is  pentrationproof ;  we  don't.  All  we  claim 
is  that  we  have  erected  all  the  safeguards  within  the  state  of  the  art  at 
the  i^resent  time. 

Senator  Tunney.  There  are  many  more  structural  questions  that  I 
have,  but  there  are  others  who  haven't  asked  questions,  and  I  ^^■ould 
like  temporarily  to  suspend  until  they  have  a  chance  to  ask  questions. 

I  do  have  a  question  relating  to  your  involvement  or  noninvolvement 
with  the  security  of  documents  that  were  made  available  to  this  com- 
mittee. 

Did  you  personally  give  or  authorize  the  giving  of  the  Dita  Beard 
memorandum  to  the  ITT  Corp.? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  did  not. 

Senator  Tunney.  Do  you  have  any  idea  how  the  Dita  Beard 
memorandum  ended  up  in  the  hands  of  the  ITT  Corp.? 

IMr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  that  it  ended  up  in  the  hands  of  the  ITT 
Corp.,  but  I  can  tell  you  what  I  did  at  that  time.  I  have  got  to,  as  I 
promised  Senator  Byrd  I  would  do  yesterday.  I  will  be  more  specific 
and  more  precise  because  I  am  testifying  under  oath  here.  \[y  recol- 
lection is,  after  looking  at  some  of  my  earher  notes,  'v\hile  I  was  acting  as 
the  Assistant  Attorney  General  of  the  Civil  Division  and  Deputy 
Attorney  General-Designate,  I  received  a  call  from  Mr.  Dean,  counsel 
to  the  President,  asking  that  this  memorandum  be  made  available.  I 
discussed  with  him  the  fact  that  this  was  a  public  document,  it  had 
been  printed  and  published  widely  in  all  newspapers  in  the  United 
States,  that  ^\■e  \\ere  as  interested  in  truth  or  falsity  as  they  were  at 
the  White  House  because  of  the  fact  that  serious  allegations  were 


176 

made  against  the  Attorney  General,  as  I  recall  it,  the  Deputy  Attorney 
General,  as  I  recall  it,  and  that,  yes,  I  would  make  that  document 
available  to  him. 

Senator  Tunney.  And  it  was  made  available? 
Mr.  Gray.  It  was  made  available  to  him  by  me. 
Senator  Tunney.  Do  you  kno\\'  whether  Mr.  Colson  got  his  hands  on 
it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir.  No,  sir;  I  do  not.  All  I  know  is  that  that  docu- 
ment was  returned  to  me  in  exactly  the  same  form  as  I  had  delivered 
it.  I  know  that  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  report  submitted 
to  this  committee,  reported  that  document  to  be  possibly  authentic. 
Senator  Tunney.  Well,  when  the  press  reports  indicated  that  ITT 
did  have  the  Dita  Beard  memorandum,  did  you  make  any  effort  to 
find  out  how  it  was  that  they  had  gotten  access  to  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  didn't  make  any  effort  at  all  because  I  felt  what 
we  were  interested  in  ^^-ith  regard  to  that  document  was  the  issue  of 
truth,  and  if  ITT,  if  that  aUegation  was  true  and  if  ITT  could  come 
up  with  some  information  with  regard  to  a  serious  case  of  this  nature, 
I  felt  that  this  committee  would  be  entitled  to  have  it.  But  I  don't 
know  what  ITT  came  up  with.  I  don't  know  if  ITT  had  that  document. 

Senator  Tunney.  Weh,  except  for  the  fact  that  the  committee 
gave  it  to  the  Justice  Department  to  be  transmitted  to  the  FBI,  and 
I  don't  believe,  and  I  sat  through  all  those  hearings,  I  don't  believe 
that  there  ever  was  an  authorization  to  see  that  document  m  de 
available  to  the  ITT  Corp. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  whether  there  was  any  authorization  or 
not.  Senator,  but  in  the  position  that  I  held  as  Deputy  Attorne}'- 
General -Design  ate  at  that  time,  I  was  making  the  decision  for  the 
Department  of  Justice,  and  when  I  am  called  by  counsel  to  the 
President  in  a  matter  of  this  serious  nature  for  a  document  of  this 
type,  I  made  it  available  and  I  would  do  it  again. 

Senator  Tunney.  Let  me  ask  you  this.  When  you  make  informa- 
tion available  to  a  counsel  for  the  President,  and  it  appears  that  the 
mformation  that  you  have  made  available  is  leaked  or  made  available 
to  third  parties  who  have  no  right  to  it,  do  you  feel,  as  Director  of  the 
FBI,  that  you  have  any  responsibility  to  see  that  an  investigation  is 
done  of  that  WTiite  House  counselor? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  But  you  always  get  yourself,  you  know, 
in  the  problem  of  who  you  are  going  to  investigate.  You  have  to  be 
very,  very  careful  about  that  because  here  is  where  you  run  into  first 
amendment  considerations  and  get  yourself  into  a  real  hassle. 

Senator  Tunney.  The  only  person  who  can  discipline  the  White 
House  counselor  is  probably  the  President  himself;  isn't  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  suspect  so;  yes,  sir.- 

Senator  Tunney.  In  a  noncriminal  way. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right;  yes,  sir — in  the  absence  of  laws  of  the 
United  States. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  didn't  understand,  if  the  Senator  will  yield, 
in  response  to  the  Senator's  question,  the  fh'st  amendment. 

Mr.  Gray.  You  are  liable  to  run  into  the  same  kind  of  a  situation, 
Senator  Kennedy.  We  do  all  the  time.  We  go  so  far  in  trying  to  check 
out  leaks,  and  we  come  up  with  these  documents  that  are  in  the  hands 
of  the  press  and  you  have  got  to  stop,  look,  and  listen,  ^''ou  have  got 
to  give  some  consideration  to  where  vou  go  from  there. 


177 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well.  I  menu  if  you  were  convinced  that  there 
was  a  leak  by  the  President's  counselor  would  3^ou  be  any  less  reluctant 
to  blow  that  case  out  of  the  water? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  and  I  said  yesterday  that  I  proceed  on  the  pre- 
sumption of  regularity,  that  I  do  not  proceed  on  the  presumption 
that  either  the  President,  his  counselor,  or  the  members  of  his  staff 
are  going  to 


Senator  Kennedy.  How  much  evidence  do  you  need  to  rebut  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  How  much  evidence  do  I  need  for  what,  sir? 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  you  need  to  rebut  it.  How  much  e\'idence, 
you  proceed  on  a  presumption  and  I  am  wondering  how  much  evi- 
dence do  you  need  to  rebut  the  presumption. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  a  kind  of  presumption.  I  don't  know  how  much 
evitlence.  I  am  not  going  to  take  it  on  the  basis  of  newspaper  accounts 
and  that  kind  of  thing,  you  know,  and  that  occurred  sometime  after, 
as  I  recall.  I  don't  know  when  it  was  reported  in  the  press. 

Senator  Tunney.  Have  you  developed  au}^  standards,  guidelines, 
in  this  particular  area? 

The  thing  that  concerns  me  here  is  that  there  was  a  press  report 
of  a  leak  by  a  White  House  counselor  cf  confidential  information  to 
Mr  Segretti. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  have  not  seen  that,  sir;  I  don't  know.  I  would  have 
to  see  that  report  right  in  front  of  me,  you  know,  to  answer  that 
cjuestion. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  there  were,  it  was  common  knowledge, 
you  said  you  blew  j^our  top. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  was  on  wSegretti? 

Senator  Kennedy.   Yes,  on  Segretti. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  sorry,  that  is  true. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Then  there  were  also  some  reports  at  the  time 
of  the  ITT  hearing  that  the  Dita  Beard  memorandum  had  ended  up 
in  the  hands  of  ITT  for  purposes  of  analj^sis,  which  certainly  was 
going  out  of  channels  and  certainly  was  something  that  this  commit- 
tee, I  know,  I  sat  on  it,  didn't  authorize.  Now  I  am  curious  to  know 
if  you  are  developing  any  kind  of  procedures  whereby  you  are  going 
to  protect  the  FBI  and  the  security  of  FBI  files  from  disclosures  by 
White  House  counselors  if,  in  fact,  and  we  don't  know  whether  they 
did  or  not,  they  are  only  allegations,  if  in  fact  they  do  leak  this  infor- 
mation to  third  parties. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  but  I  don't  think  there  was  a  violation  of  law  here. 
It  is  not  something  that  is  within  our  jurisdiction  to  go  just  willy- 
nilly  investigating.  We  can't  have  it  both  ways,  we  have  got  to  have 
a  violation  of  law. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Would  it  be  a  violation  of  law  if  in  fact  a  'Wliite 
House  counselor  gave  your  investigative  report  to  Mr.  Segretti  to 
advise  him  before  a  grand  jury  hearing? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  know  of  no  violation  of  law  in  that.  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Are  you  planning  any  procedures,  any  guide- 
lines with  respect  to  the  making  of  investigative  reports  available  to 
White  House  counselors? 

Mr.  Gray.  None  other  than  what  I  have  already  exercised  in  the 
administration  of  the  office  to  date — to  be  very,  very  careful,  to  be  as 
circumspect  as  I  can  be  about  it,  to  ask  questions  about  it,  to  discuss 


178 

it,  that  kind  of  thing,  and  to  stay  Axithin  our  own  jurisdictional  guide- 
Hnes.  But  it  shouldn't  be  i)resunied  by  anyone  that  every  day  I  am 
called  by  someone  in  the  White  House  to  send  over  a  file  or  that  kind 
of  thing.  I  am  not.  It  just  does  not  hap])en. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  they  are  not  sent  over  as  a  matter  of  course? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir.  I  can  state  that  to  you  under  oath  categorically; 
no,  sir;  they  are  not. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  would  like  to  reserve  the  balance  of  my  time, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  give  others  an  o]i]iortunity. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Fong. 

Senator  Fong.  Mr.  Gray,  I  am  so  sorry  I. was  not  able  to  be  here 
yesterday  afternoon.  Therefore,  I  may  ask  you  some  c^uestions  that 
may  be  repetitive,  but  I  ask  you  to  go  along  with  me. 

You  have  been  charged  with  not  having  any  enforcement  experience, 
but  reviewing  your  experience  as  a  lawyer,  your  experience  in  the  At- 
torney General's  office,  and  your  other  experience,  I  am  satisfied  that 
you  are  capable  of  filling  this  ])osition. 

Another  charge  leveled  against  you  is  that  you  have  too  many 
dossiers  on  too  many  people  in  the  United  States.  Could  you  give  us 
an  idea  as  to  when  you  prepare  a  file  on  an  individual.  Do  you  i)re])are 
a  file  on  an  individual  whenever  you  get  any  kind  of  com]ilaint  against 
him,  or  any  criticism,  or  any  communication  about  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  Not  if  we  get  any  communication  about  him.  That  is 
just  informant-type  information  or  an  anonymous  letter  situation  or 
a  newspaper  clipping  sent  in.  Those  usually  go  into  the  files,  and  there 
could  be  200  or  300  peo])le  represented  in  one  of  them  as  distinguished 
from  when  we  begin  an  investigation  and  actually  conduct  an  investi- 
gation of  an  individual.  Then  information  that  is  received  concerning 
that  individual  is  checked  and  Aerified,  using  all  of  our  resources  to 
get  to  the  facts. 

Senator  Fong.  If  a  man  is  considered  to  be  a  criminal,  you  A\<>u]d 
have  a  criminal  file  on  him;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  If  he  has  committed  a  criminal  offense,  sir,  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  violalied  the  laws 
of  the  United  States  for  which  we  have  the  responsibility  to  investi- 
gate, yes;  we  would. 

Senator  Fong.  Now,  if  I  were  a  civil  service  employee,  you  \\x>idil 
have  a  file  on  me? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  would  probably  have  an  applicant-type  situation 
where  we  would  have  a  fingerprint  card  for  you  and  then  if  we  did  a 
background  investigation  on  3^ou,  we  would;  yes. 

-Senator  Fong.  Yes.  If,  for  example,  during  the  war  I  had  a  finger- 
print of  mAself  taken  and  filed  with  the  FBI  to  identify  myself  in 
case   of  an}'"  casualty,  you  AAOuld  have   that  kind  of  information? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  and  that  would  be  included  in  our  civil  file  that 
Senator  Kennedy  mentioned  earlier.  That  obviously  is  not  in  our 
criminal  file,  and  all  the  military  prints  make  up  a  pretty  large  segment 
of  that  civil  file  according  to  my  understanding  of  them. 

Senator  Fong.  Then,  every  militarv  man  would  have  a  file  in  the 
FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  would  have  from  the  standpoint  of  his  fingerprint 
identification  card  and  then,  if  a  background  investigation  were  made 
of  him  with  regard  to  any  classification  security  clearances  that  he 


179 

would  receive,  he  would  have  that  kind  of  a  background  investigation 
file. 

Senator  Fong.  With  regard  to  the  general  pubhc,  you  only  have 
things  that  are  sent  in  by  various  individuals  or  agencies  to  the  FBI? 
Ami  then  to  understand  that  you  just  throw  this  information  into 
a  general  file? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  It  comes  in  and  a  decision  is  made  as  to 
whether  to  retain  it  or  not.  It  goes  into  these  big  serials,  you  know, 
200  or  300  of  them  would  be  together  and,  if  we  have  an  investigative 
file  set  up,  instead  of  gouig  over  here  it  would  go  into  the  investigative 
file. 

Senator  Fong.  Say  someone  writes  in  that  a  John  Doe  stole  an 
automobile — vou  would  just  take  that  and  throw  it  into  the  general 
file? 

Mr.  Gray.  If  this  is  somebody  just  writing  in  and.  saying  John  Doe 
stole  an  automobile  we  are  liable  to  do  some  checking  with  the  local 
PD  to  see  if,  in  fact,  an  automobile  has  been  stolen  and  the  Dyer 
Act  is  involved. 

Senator  Fong.   You  would  consider  that  as  a  file  on  John  Doe? 

Mr.  Gray.  If  we  began  to  open  a  file  on  him  we  probably  would, 
with  the  api^ropriate  fiekl  office  being  the  office  of  origin. 

Senator  Fong.  Wlien  you  say  you  have  about  50  or  60  million 
files 

Mr.  Gray.  These  are  identification  records  over  in  the  Identifica- 
tion Division,  Senator,  as  distinguished  from  the  files  over  in  the  Files 
and  Communications  Division.  We  are  dealing  mth  two  different 
divisions. 

'Senator  Fong.  Wlien  you  talk  about  files,  how  many  files  would  you 
say  you  had? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know.  I  will  have  to  provide  that  number  for 
the  record. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  followang  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  As  of  March  1,  1973,  there  are  6,426,813  files. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  the  40  million,  how  far  back  does  that  reach? 

Air.  Gray.  How  far  back  do  those  files  reach,  sir?  From  the  incep- 
tion. But  we  do  have  a  record  management  ])rogram. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Records  Management  Files  and  Communications  Division  Through  Close 

OF  Business  1-31-73 

The  Files  and  Communications  Division  has  in  operation  an  extensive  and  com- 
prehensive Records  Management  Program  designed  to  insure  that  all  records  are 
maintained  in  the  most  compact,  informative  and  useable  manner  possible. 
There  are  many  facets  to  this  program  and  the  major  ones  are  summarized  below 
together  with  a  listing  of  accomplishments  to  date: 

1.  Correlation  Sum7naries. — A  correlation  summary  is  a  memorandum  contain- 
ing concise  abstracts  of  information  from  various  Bureau  files  on  a  particular 
subject  or  individual.  The  purpose  of  the  summary  is  to  pull  together  all  informa- 
tion on  a  designated  subject  in  one  document.  This  results  in  elimination  of  excess 
index  references  and  the  consolidation  of  information  in  a  source  document  (the 
summarjO  to  locate  detailed  documents  on  a  particular  subject. 

Accomplishments : 

Summaries  Prepared,  4,461. 

Index  Cards  Destroyed,  1,377,968 — Equal  to  25?^  index  cabinets. 


180 

2.  Index  Purge — The  purpose  of  the  index  purge  is  to  remove  obsolete  index 
cards  from  the  general  index  in  order  to  make  that  index  more  valid  in  terms  of 
its  information  response  and  more  workable  in  terms  of  its  overall  size.  The  purge 
of  index  cards  includes  all  areas  of  records  management  except  those  index  cards 
removed  through  the  preparation  of  correlation  summaries. 

Accomplishments : 

Index  Cards  Destroyed,  10,942,136— Equal  to  202%  index  cabinets. 

3.  Copy  Destruction. — The  goal  of  the  copy  destruction  program  is  to  destroy 
duplicate  and  excessive  copies  of  record  material  in  order  to  save  file  space. 

Accomplishments : 

Copies  destroyed  equal  to  1,028.8  file  cabinets. 

4-.  Destruction  of  Files. — This  program  includes  the  destruction  of  record  mate- 
rial on  the  basis  of  authority  under  the  General  Records  Schedule  of  disposal  and 
under  specific  authoritj^  secured  by  the  Bureau  through  the  National  Archives 
where  General  Records  Schedule  does  not  apply.  Records  so  designated  for  des- 
truction have  been  found  to  possess  no  significant  historical,  intelligence,  informa- 
tive or  research  value  and,  therefore,  do  not  merit  retention. 

Accomplishmenis: 

Records  destroyed  equal  to  1,301  file  cabinets. 

5.  Destruction  of  Bulky  Exhibits. — The  purpose  of  this  program  is  to  destroy 
those  file  enclosures  which  because  of  their  size  cannot  be  maintained  in  a  normal 
size  file  cabinet  and  which  do  not  merit  continued  retention. 

Accomplishments; 

Exhibits  destroyed  equal  the  approximate  size  of  7.5.6  file  cabinets. 

6.  Microfilming. — The  purpose  of  this  program  is  to  reduce  to  micro  form  that 
record  material  which  cannot  be  destroyed  because  of  continued  usefulness  but 
where  the  use  is  limited.  The  goal  is  to  reduce  space  occupied  by  those  records 
based  on  the  limited  amount  of  use  given  them. 

Accomplishments : 

Record  material  destroyed  equals  2,009  cabinets. 

7.  Main  Card  Rehabilitation. — The  purpose  of  this  continuing  program  is  to 
make  the  index  most  responsive  to  the  needs  of  all  users.  Since  19.'i7,  this  program 
has  included  a  system  to  automatically  capture  for  the  index  record  identifying 
data  which  was  not  available  at  the  time  the  initial  index  record  was  prepared. 
For  those  index  records  prepared  prior  to  19.)7,  research  has  been  conducted  to  go 
back  to  the  source  document  and  capture  identifying  data  not  previously  recorded 
in  the  index. 

8.  Records  Disposal  Committee. — The  Records  Disposal  Committee  has  the  re- 
sponsibility to  identify,  through  research  and  analysis,  record  material  which  no 
longer  serves  any  useful  purpose  on  the  basis  of  intelligence,  informative,  historical 
or  research  value.  Appropriate  authority  is  then  secured  to  dispose  of  this  material. 

The  Chairman.  From  the  inception  of  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  We  do  have  a  records  management  section 
in  the  FBI.  I  earlier  answered  the  question  and  said  we  don't  expunge. 
But.  in  accordance  with  that  records  management  program,  which  I 
have  made  an  insert  in  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  be  permitted  to 
explain 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  everybod}"  in  the  military  service 
since  the  FBI 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  the  inception  of  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  1908  was  the  beginning. 

Senator  Fong.  Then,  as  to  the  general  public,  you  actually  don  t 
have  any  files? 

Mr.  Gray.  Not  unless  they  fall  in  one  of  these  categories  we  have 
been  discussing  this  morning  or  unless  a  letter,  anonymous  letter 
comes  in  about  some  individual  or  informant  type  information  comes 
in  about  some  individual. 

Senator  Fong.  Many  citizens  volunteer  to  have  their  finger- 
prints  

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  Senator. 


181 

Senator  Fong  (continuing).  Filed  with  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

wSenator  Fong.  How  man}^  million  would  you  say? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know,  I  would  have  to  furnish  that  for  the 
record.  I  believe  we  could  acquire  that  information,  I  am  not  sure  we 
even  have  it  now. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  As  of  February  1,  1973,  our  civil  fingerprint  file  contained  finger- 
prints of  5,778,171  individuals  who  have  submitted  their  fingerprints  to  us  for 
personal  identification  purposes.  During  the  past  fiscal  year  (July  1,  1971  to 
June  30,  1972)  13,640  individuals  submitted  their  fingerprints  to  us  for  personal 
identification  purposes. 

Senator  Fong.  That  would  be  for  their  own  safety  and  own  identi- 
fication? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Fong.  How  much  does  the  FBI  do  in  regard  to  missing 
persons  and  trying  to  locate  missing  persons?  As  to  persons  who  have 
died,  how  much  work  does  the  FBI  do  in  trying  to  find  out  who  they 
are? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  have  to  get  a  measurement  on  that  for  you, 
Senator.  I  know  we  do  considerable.  We  do  considerable  disaster  work. 
We  are  always  sending  disaster  teams  out  whenever  major  disasters 
occur  to  assist  in  the  identification  of  persons. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequentl}'  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  Through  our  fingerprint  files  we  are  able  to  provide  many  humani- 
tarian services.  For  example,  during  the  past  fiscal  year  (July  1,  1971  to  June  20, 
1972)  our  Identification  Division  received  the  fingerprints  of  21,266  deceased 
individuals,  many  of  whom  were  unlvno^\^l  deceased.  Of  this  number,  the  finger- 
prints of  18,737  were  of  good  enough  quality  to  permit  a  search  through  our  files 
and  11,654  or  62%  were  positiveh^  identified  by  lingei-prints.  Included  in  this 
number  were  many  individuals  who  had  no  arrest  recoi  ds  and  they  were  identified 
witli  fingerprints  maintained  in  our  civil  file.  A  number  of  the  deceased  lingerprints 
were  from  the  military  services  in  connection  with  Vietnam  casualties. 

The  FBI  Disaster  Squad,  which  renders  on-the-scene  assistance  in  identifying 
victims  of  disasters,  was  formed  in  1940.  Since  January  1,  1959,  the  Disaster 
Squad  has  assisted  with  identification  problems  in  86  disasters  involving  airplane 
crashes,  ship  accidents,  fires,  explosions,  hurricanes,  floods  and  bus  accidents. 
Fingerprints  or  palm  prints  were  secured  from  an  estimated  2,277  victims,  exact 
number  unknown  because  of  dismemberment,  and  1,604  or  70.44%  were  positively 
identified  by  fingerprints  or  palm  prints.  Many  of  these  identifications  were  made 
witli  fingerprints  maintained  in  our  civil  file. 

Other  humanitarian  uses  made  of  our  fingerprint  files  involve  identification  of 
amnesia  victims,  assisting  in  establishing  an  individual's  veteran's  status  so  that 
he  or  she  may  qualify  for  veteran's  benefits,  establishing  positive  identity  of 
individuals  seeking  to  qualify  for  benefits  vmder  Civil  Service  regulations  and  social 
security.  Althougli  we  are  not  autliorized  to  conduct  active  investigation  to  locate 
missing  persons,  we  do  place  stops  in  our  fingerprint  files,  on  request,  so  that 
relatives  may  be  advised  shoiild  information  as  to  the  location  of  the  missing 
persons  come  to  our  attention  through  our  fingerprint  files.  At  present  we  have 
approximately  6,000  missing  persons  stop  notices  in  our  fingerprint  files  and  during 
the  past  fiscal  year  (July  1,  1971  to  June  30,  1972)  1,202  such  notices  were  added  to 
the  file  while  1,452  notices  were  cancelled.  We  have  received  many  heart-warming 
letters  from  individuals  who  have  located  missing  relatives  through  this  service. 

Senator  Fong.  As  FBI  Director,  would  you  say  that  the  average 
American  citizen  does  not  have  an}^ thing  to  fear  from  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  This  is  my  belief.  I  don't  believe  it  is  shared  by  everyone 
but  it  is  shared  by  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 


182 

Senator  Fong.  And  the  average  American  who  feels  the  FBI  is  an 
overpowering  institution  and  it  is  scary,  they  have  no  reason  to 
beheve  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  Quite  to  the  contrar}'.  From  ever^'thing  that  I  have 
learned  in  the  10  months  that  I  have  been  there,  and  in  talking  with 
FBI  headquarters  peoj^ie  and  in  the  field,  and  from  hearing  from 
citizens  throughout  the  United  States,  I  feel  that  the  reputation  of  the 
FBI  is  extremely  high  and  its  services  are  valued  by  the  American 
people. 

Senator  Fong.  They  feel  that  the  FBI  is  a  friendly  agency  rather 
than  a  hostile  one? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  my  belief,  Senator,  and  I  think  it  is  shared  by 
the  majority  of  the  American  people. 

Senator  Fong.  Mr.  Gray,  you  have  been  accused  of  not  doing  your 
level  best  in  the  Watergate  case.  You  have  stated  to  this  committee 
that  all  the  raw  files  are  available  to  us;  is  that  connect? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  made  the  statement  that  they  were  available  to  the 
members,  and  I  would  provide  two  thoroughly  experienced  agents  to 
sit  down  wath  the  members  and  respond  to  any  questions  that  the 
members  might  have  and  assist  the  members  in  going  over  those 
files.  Once  again,  I  am  exercising  what  caution  I  deem  to  be  prudent 
here  to  restrict  the  need  to  know  because  of  the  information.  It  in- 
volves people,  a  lot  of  the  information  has  not  been  subject  to  trial,  a 
lot  of  those  people  have  not  been  indicted,  and  I  just  feel  this  is  the 
prudent  way  to  do  it. 

Senator  Fong.  You  feel  you  have  investigated  this  case  without 
bias,  with  all  of  the  usual  procedures  that  you  ordinarily  follow  in  any 
other  investigation? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  truth  of  the  matter,  Senator,  is  if  I  had  not  done  so, 
morale  in  the  FBI  would  not  be  what  it  is  today  nor  would  I  be  in 
this  seat.  People  would  have  blo\M3.  me  right  out  of  the  water  long 
before  now.  That  is  the  practical  truth  of  the  matter.  The  men  and 
women  of  the  FBI  would  not  tolerate  my  coming  in  there  and  trying 
to  steer  or  guide  that  investigation,  and  I  say  that  any  one  of  the  top 
executives  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  would  come  here 
before  this  committee  and  would  testify  to  that  under  oath. 

Senator  Fong.  Your  bosses  are  the  Attorney"  General  and  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct.  Senator.  I  am  a  Bureau  Chief  in  the 
Justice  Department  under  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government. 

Senator  Fong.  If  the  Attorney  General  wishes  to  have  a  file,  an 
FBI  file,  on  an  indi^^[dual  because  of  an  investigation  of  that  indi\ddual, 
you  would  make  that  available  to  the  Justice  Department;  is  that 
correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  make  the  information  available  to  the  Attorney 
General  as  we  do  in  the  regular  course  of  business  with  all  of  the 
Assistant  Attorneys  General,  the  Criminal  Division,  the  Civil  Div- 
ison  and  the  Civil  Rights  Division.  We  actually  do  the  investigating 
for  them.  We  work  for  them. 

Senator  Fong.  If  the  Attorney  General  asked  for  it,  you  will  make 
it  available  to  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 


183 

Senator  Fong.  That  has  been  a  standard  practice  of  the  FBI  all 
these  years? 

Air.  Gray.  From  the  inception;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Fong.  And,  if  the  President  of  the  United  States  %\T.shes 
to  have  an  FBI  file  delivered  to  him,  would  it  be  delivered  to  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  would  be  delivered  to  liim. 

wSenator  Fong.  Is  that  standard  practice? 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is  not.  That  is  not  the  w^ay  it  occurs,  that  is  not  the 
way  it  is  usually  done.  It  is  usually  done  by  submitting  the  memo- 
randa that  we  do  submit  and  on  occasion  permitting  review  of  the 
actual  interview  sheets  themselves,  depending  upon  the  nature  of  the 
situation. 

Senator  Fong.  The  White  House  has  from  time  to  time  asked  for 
certain  files,  has  it  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Oh,  that  is  correct.  They  don't  get  files  as  such.  You 
know,  like  I  wouldn't  take  all  these  Watergate  files  as  such  and  shunt 
them  all  over  there.  In  this  particular  case  we  gave  a  letterhead 
memorandum  to  the  Attorney  General  which,  I  have  every  reason  to 
believe,  was  sent  to  Mr.  Dean.  Then  later  on  I  gave  Mr.  Dean  the 
interview  reports  in  the  Watergate,  but  I  didn't  give  him  all  the 
other  memoranda  and  all  the  other  documents  that  we  have  in  con- 
nection A\dth  the  files. 

Senator  Fong.  So,  when  a  communication  comes  from  the  Wliite 
House  to  give  certain  persons  in  high  authority  a  certain  file  or  a 
memorandum  of  a  file,  3'ou  would  do  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  Rarely  would  we  give  them  the  file,  but  we  would  give 
them  the  memorandum  on  the  case  when  it  is  recpiested,  yes. 

vSenator  Gurney.  Would  the  Senator  vield? 

Senator  Fong.   Yes,  I  would. 

Senator  Gurney.  Mr.  Gray,  this  word  "interview"  has  been  used, 
interview  reports;  what  does  that  mean? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  an  FD-302.  When  an  agent  interviews  an 
individual  he  writes  out  the  report  of  the  interview,  what  the  indivi- 
dual told  him. 

Senator  Gurney.  This  is  not  a  cpiestion  and  answer  thing.  It  is  a 
sA'nopsis  of  what  testimony  the  agent  took? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  He  writes  it  out,  "Joe  Blow  advised  us," 
and  it  goes  on  and  on  about  what  he  advised  us. 

Senator  Fong.  I  see.  You  don't  know  whether  what  is  said  is  true 
or  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Sir? 

Senator  Fong.   You  don't  know  whether  what  is  said  is  true  or  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Oh,  no,  we  only  take  what  the  individual  tells  us, 
because  we  have  no  way — this  is  a  report  of  an  agent  intervievvdng  an 
individual. 

Senator  Fong.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Dean,  who  was  representing  the 
President  of  the  iJnited  States,  his  receiving  this  memorandum  from 
you  was  a  usual  procedure? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  was  the  usual  procedure,  that  it  went  to  the 
Attorney  General  and  then  to  him. 

Senator  Fong.  I  see. 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  he  didn't  ask — that  letterhead  memorandum 
was  not  really  requested  b}'  him.  He  wanted  information  regarding 


184 

the  case  later  on.  We  discussed  the  letterhead  memorandum  and  I 
said,  "I  ^\^ll  prepare  it  for  the  Attorney  General  and  3'ou  discuss  that 
with  the  Attorney  General." 

Senator  Fong.  He  got  that  letter  from  the  Attorney  General? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  believe  he  did.  I  cannot  testify  under  oath  as  to  a 
fact  because  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  that  LHM  as  we  call  it 
was  sent  over  to  him. 

Senator  Fong.  What  happened  after  that  you  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  do  not  know. 

Senator  Fong.  You  did  what  3-ou  were  told  to  do? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Fong.   You  followed  procedure  in  doing  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Fong.  When  you  submitted  that  letter  to  the  Attorney 
General,  it  was  the  proper  thing  for  vou  to  do? 

Mr.  Gray.   Yes,  sir,  that  is  the  LHM  of  July  21,  1972. 

Senator  Fong.  This  chars-e  that  Mr.  Segretti  got  hold  of  that 
interview  memo;  you  had  nothing  to  do  with  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  he  didn't — you  know,  the  charge  varies  as  to 
what  the  newspapers  sa}^  about  it,  and  I  don't  know  what  occurred 
with     Mr.     Segretti. 

Senator  Fong.  So,  you  don't  know? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  do  not. 

Senator  Fong.  Now,  you  have  also  been  charged  v/ith  making 
quite  a  few  partisan  speeches,  and  especialh'  two  speeches.  One  was 
given  before  the  Rotarv  Club  in  Montana — Butte,  Mont.,  on  wSep- 
tem-ber  7,  1972,  and  the  other  on  August  11,  1972,  before  the  City 
Club  of  Cleveland.  Your  title  in  the  September  7,  1972,  address  was 
"A  Nation  That  Cares,"  and  your  title  of  the  August  11,  1972,  City 
Club  of  Cleveland  speech  was  "Freedom  L'nder  Law." 

I  noted  that  your  speeches  were  quite  short.  Thev  ran  to  12  to  15 
minutes;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  the  way  I  talk.  Senator,  they  go  15  to  20  minutes. 
They  usually  run  20  pages  triple  space  all  caps,  and  that  is  about 
20  minutes. 

Senator  Fong.  I  see. 

Now,  the  speech  that  3"0U  made  to  the  Rotary  Club  in  Butte,  iNIont., 
"A  Nation  That  Cares,"  I  have  read  it  very,  very  carefully.  I  woulil 
like  to  pick  out  some  of  the  things  in  it  which  are  outstanding.  You 
said : 

This  evening  I  want  to  talk  about  A  Nation  That  Cares,  a  Nation  which  is 
concerned  about  its  citizens,  their  welfare,  their  happiness,  their  dignity  as  human 
beings. 

In  our  20th  century  world  these  are  among  the  salient  questions  facing  mankind: 

What  kind  of  society  do  we  want? 

What  kind  of  countrj^  is  America  going  to  become? 

Does  our  government  care  about  our  people?  Does  it  listen? 

Is  it  a  sensitive  society,  wanting  to  make  life  more  significant  and  meaningful  for 
every  man,  woman  and  child? 

Then  you  went  on  to  say : 

We  realize  that  unless  people  care — about  themselves,  about  others,  aboiit  their 
values  and  traditions — our  country  will  die. 

This  is  why  America  is  today  a  great  and  respected  Nation. 


185 


Then  voii  said: 


Uufortunatel.y,  there  are  today  a  small  minority  of  Americans — ^not  many  but  a 
few — who  bitterly  and  falsely  denounce  our  countrjr  as  cruel,  sick,  callous,  and 
repressive. 

The}'  want  to  create  the  impression  that  our  government  is  an  ogre,  a  monster 
which  simply  doesn't  care. 

Another  prominent  educator  has  publicly  denounced  our  national 
leaders — and  I  ask,  did  he  mean  just  the  President?  But  to  continue, 
3'ou  said: 

Our  national  leaders  as  not  giving — in  his  words — "any  clear  sign  of  compassion 
or  concern  for  the  poor,  the  weak,  the  sick,  the  unemployed,  the  helpless.  .  .  ." 

When  you  referred  to  "national  leaders,"  it  was  to  the  whole  general 
scheme  of  things;  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Right;  the  three  branches  of  Government,  and  I  was 
addressing  myself  to  the  general  attack  on  our  institutions. 

Senator  Fong.  You  were  citing  what  others  had  said,  what  a  prom- 
inent educator  said,  and  you  continued: 

Another  speaks  of  a  "selfish  and  oblivious  ruling  Establishment." 

And  you  said: 

This  is  extremist  rhetoric. 

It  is  not  based  on  facts. 

It  deals  in  overkill,  emotion,  and  flamboyance. 

It  seeks  to  set  group  against  group,  citizen  against  citizen. 

You  said: 

These  detractors  aim  not  at  reform  of  our  institutions,  but  at  their  destruction. 

Then  you  go  on  to  say: 

In  my  opinion  the  vast  majority  of  Americans  are  becoming  tired  of  this  quack- 
ing chorus  of  pessimism,  cj^nicism,  and  lack  of  faith. 

Is  there  anything  there  to  boost  the  Republican  Party? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  I  certainly  didn't  believe  so.  I  believe  that  I  was 
talking  about  our  Government.  I  certaiuh"  went  at  it  in  that  manner, 
and  that  was  the  feeling  in  m}^  heart  and  the  intent  in  ni}'  mind.  I  \\dll 
admit  though.  Senator  Fong,  that  others  can  read  that  differently. 

Senator  Fong.   Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Gray.  But  I  would  say  under  oath;  no. 

Senator  Fong.  There  was  nothing  to  boost  the  Republican  Party? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  absolutel}'  not. 

Senator  Fong.  And  to  boost  the  President? 

Mr.  Gray.  Absolutel}'^  not. 

Senator  Fong.  Then  you  go  on  to  say: 

Since  World  War  II  the  taxpayers  of  this  countr}'  have  provided  approximately 
$130  billion  in  loans  and  outright  grants  to  other  nations.  This  has  gone  not  just 
to  our  strongest  and  closest  allies,  but  roost  especially  to  weaker  nations  most  in 
need  of  it. 

Then  you  go  on  and  say: 

Again,  what  other  country  has  found  a  means  to  send  people  of  ability'  and 
dedication  to  help  emerging  nations  around  the  world  in  their  efforts  to  elevate 
their  waj^  of  life,  without  asking  anything  whatsoever  in  return? 

4:  :!:  4:  4:  H:  ^  4: 

What  other  people  supports  anywhere  near  the  variety  of  charitable  causes 
and  contributes  an j^ where  near  the  proportio  1  of  its  resources  for  such  causes?  I 
refer  to  approximately  $20  billion  per  year  in  private  contributions  to  health, 
welfare,  educational,  and  religious  institutio.is. 


186 

And  you  go  on  to  sa}^: 

America  is  NOT  a  selfish,  unconcerned  societj^  that  does  not  care. 

Then  you  say : 

I  like  the  quotation  attributed  to  Lowell  Thomas:  "He  who  allows  a  day  to 
pass  without  practicing  generosity  .  .  .,"  he  said,  "is  hke  a  blacksmith's  bellows — 
he  breathes  but  does  not  live." 

This  is  the  spirit  of  A  NATION  THAT  CARES. 

In  our  democratic  society,  however,  the  concept  of  service  takes  on  a  dimension 
beyond  material  assistance. 

Its  greater  gift  is  to  provide  a  climate  of  freedom  in  which  every  individual  may 
j:)ursue  his  own  hopes,  dreams  and  aspirations,  and  may  work  out  his  own  destiny 
as  a  human  being. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

What  other  country  has  made  such  a  determined  effort  to  combat  discrimina- 
tion and  assure  equal  opportunity  for  all  persons  regardless  of  race,  color,  or 
religion? 

Then  you  say : 

Finally,  the  gift  of  individual  freedom  and  equal  opportunity  that  we  enjoy 
derives  primarily  from  the  free  government  that  we  have  maintained  for  two 
centuries.  By  that  I  mean  a  government  in  which  the  individual  is  protected  in 
his  freedoms  and  his  personal  goals  by  laws  that  he  or  his  representative  helped 
to  make.  Contrary  to  the  opinion  of  some,  law  is  not  the  enemy  of  freedom.  Law 
guarantees  freedom  against  invasion  by  others. 

Then  you  go  on  to  say  what  the  country  is  doing.  I  don't  find  any- 
thing here  boosting  the  RepubUcan  Party,  do  you? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir,  I  didn't  think  there  was  at  the  time  I  put  the 
speech  together,  and  I  still  don't  think  it  was.  I  would  repeat  again 
for  this  committee  that  I  was  admonished  by  the  Attorney  General, 
who  said  to  me  that  "Some  people  in  the  White  House  said  they  think 
you  were  making  too  many  speeches,"  and  I  said  I  am  going  to  stand 
up,  and  I  am  going  to  talk  for  America,  and  that  was  exactly  my 
response. 

Senator  Fong.  Yes. 

Now  in  the  other  speech,  before  the  City  Club  of  Cleveland,  you 
spoke  on  "Freedom  Under  Law"  and 

The  Chairman.  The  chairman  will  be  gone  for  a  few  minutes.  When 
you  conclude,  Senator  Kennedy  will  be  recognized. 

Senator  Fong.  Thank  you. 

You  said: 

Today  the  attack  continues — for  the  concept  of  free  men  and  women  governing 
themselves  for  the  common  good  is  virtually  as  radical  in  the  20  Century  as  it 
was  in  the  twilight  of  the  18th.  And  make  no  mistake — it  is  radical  doctrine! 

Our  concept  of  freedom  under  law  is  banned,  barred,  forbidden  and  feared  in 
vast  areas  of  the  world  where  might  makes  right — where  suppression  wears  the 
uniform  of  the  police  and  the  robes  of  justice. 

Then  you  go  on  and  say : 

We  are  on  the  threshold  of  the  greatest  growth  pattern  in  our  history — growth 
in  the  quality  of  life  for  all  our  citizens — growth  in  our  total  effort  to  eradicate 
the  imperfections  in  human  society  (beginning,  always,  with  our  own). 

Then  you  say: 

We  occupy  7  percent  of  the  land  surface  of  the  earth.  We  are  6  percent  of  the 
world's  population.  We  account  for  almost  one-third  of  the  goods  and  services 
produced  on  earth. 


187 

Then  you  go  on  to  talk  about  forces  of  American  technology  and 
you  say  all  have  the  promise  for  indixdduals,  and  you  say; 

Every  citizen  of  the  United  States  is  guaranteed  legal  rights  and  protections  of 
a  magnitude  not  found  anywhere  else  in  the  world. 
All  have  the  promise  of  individual  rights  and  liberties. 
All  have  an  awareness  of  those  rights  and  liberties. 
All  have  a  guarantee  of  opportunity  to  full  realization  of  their  rights  and  liberties 

And  you  say: 

No,  pessimism  does  not  yet  reign  supreme  in  these  United  States. 
But  there  are  those  who  insist  that  our  joriceless  liberties  are  being  eroded — 
that  freedom  is  increasingly  in  jeopardy  across  the  United  States. 

Is  there  any  pro-Re]Hiblican  Party  doctrine  in  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  didn't  believe  so,  Senator. 

Senator  Bayh.  Would  the  Senator  yield  for  just  a  moment? 

Senator  Fong.  .Surely. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  don't  want  to  impose  on  the  Senator,  but 

Senator  Foxg.  I  am  very  happy  to  yield. 

Senator  Bayh.  But  inasmuch  as  the  ilistinguished  Acting  Director 
and  I  got  involved  in  a  little  discussion  on  this  yesterday,  I  think 
perhaps  it  shoidd  be  pointed  out  to  my  friend  from  HaA\'aii  that  one 
of  those  ^\ho  was  concerned  about  certain  activities  that  were  taking 
])lace  involving  Government  moving  in  on  the  rights  of  individuals 
happened  to  be  the  Presidential  candidate  for  the  opposition  party. 
Now  jjerhaps  that  might  put  the  remarks  of  the  Acting  Director  in  a 
little  different  context  when  those  remarks  were  made  a  month  or  so 
before  the  election,  and  in  a  forum  in  which  that  presidential  candi- 
date himself  had  appeared,  and  in  a  forum  where  the  following  week 
the  ^"ice-presidential  candidate  of  the  o]:)])osition  party  appeared.  That 
was  the  concern  expressed  by  the  Senator  from  Indiana. 

I  appreciate  the  courtesy  of  my  friend  from  Hawaii. 

Mr.  Gray.  If  I  ma}^  say  so,  I  accepted  this  speech  long  before  there 
was  any  thought  of  a  political  campaign  in  my  mind  and  I  went  out 
and  made  that  speech  not  knowing  that  either  of  those  two  individuals 
was  going  to  be  there.  I  had  no  knowledge  of  that  and  certainl}^  I  had 
no  knowledge  that  I  was  making  any  attack  in  any  waj".  I  was  speak- 
ing as  an  American  citizen  telling  what  I  feel  within  me,  Senator  Ba3-h. 

Senator  Bayh.  Well,  Mr.  Gray,  we  discussed  that  yesterda}^ 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  I  know  we  did. 

Senator  Bayh.  I  don't  want  to  impose  on  the  Senator  from  Hawaii, 
but  you  were  concerned  enough  with  it  to  check  that  it  was  nonpoliti- 
cal. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right,  so  I  won't  get  into  a  thicket. 

Senator  Bayh.  Whoever  did  that  job  for  you  didn't  do  enough  of  a 
job  to  show  you  that  the  opposition  candidates  were  going  to  be  there, 
and  you  did  have  a  request  in  the  administration  memorandum  which 
we  requested  yesterday  saying  that  in  the  minds  of  this  administration 
this  was  a  ver}^  important  political  forum,  and  pointed  out  that  two 
previous  administration  siuTogates  had  been  there.  I  suggest,  with  all 
respect,  if  I  didn't  yesterday,  that  perhaps  at  least  in  the  futiu'e  if  the 
White  House,  whoever  is  sitting  there,  suggests  that  a  forum  would  be 
an  important  political  forum  maybe  e  nonpartisan  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  Director  ought  to  sa}^,  "That  is  good  enough  for  me,  we 


188 

have  had  these  invitations  since  1968,  I  will  wait  and  not  accept  this 
until  1973." 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  asking  too  much  for  humanity.  I  did  have  the 
thought  it  would  be  a  political  thicket  and  I  did  check,  the  memoran- 
dum is  in  the  record,  and  there  is  no  indication  in  that  memorandum 
there  were  an}^  political  opportunities  or  overtures,  or  anything  of  the 
rest  of  it,  Senator  Bayh.  I  am  just  respectfully  differing  with  you, 
and  you  know  that. 

vSenator  Bayh.  Well,  I  will  not  impose  on  Senator  Fong's  time  but 
when  my  time  comes  I  will  read  the  memorandum  once  again.  It  is  in 
the  record,  but  I  w^ant  everyone  to  have  a  chance  to  hear  it  and  then 
make  his  own  assessment  as  to  why  the  administration  was  sending 
that  memorandum  out. 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator  Bayh,  may  I  ask  as  a  courtesy  when  you  read 
that  from  Mr.  O'Donnell,  would  j^ou  read  mine  from  the  Crime  Re- 
search Division  too,  so  we  have  both  sides  of  it.  Or  I  will  read  it  if  I 
may,  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  appropriate  time. 

Senator  Fong.  Mr.  Gray,  to  continue  with  m}^  line  of  questions,  I 
don't  see  any  pro-Republicanism  here  in  3'our  speech  and  I  don't 
think  you  did  intend  any. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not. 

Senator  Fong.  Mr.  Gray,  I  want  to  commend  j^ou  for  the  very 
long,  detailed,  and  excellent  statement  which  you  gave  to  this  com- 
mittee yesterday.  Your  statement  yesterday  has  given  this  committee 
a  very  good  insight  into  what  changes  j^ou  have  made  in  the  FBI  and 
what  you  have  done  during  the  10  months  you  have  served  as  the 
Director. 

Some  people  object  to  change  but  we  live  in  a  world  of  change  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  there  shouldn't  be  changes  even  in  the  great 
institution  that  Mr.  Hoover  left  to  you.  Your  statement  of  what  the 
objectives  and  the  function  of  the  FBI  are  and  should  be  in  our  free 
society  meets  \\ith  my  very  hearty  approval. 

Yoii  have  given  me  a  very  deep  insight  into  your  thinking  as  an 
American,  and  with  this  thinking  I  concur  heartily. 

I  want  to  commend  you  for  being  willing  to  talk  to  the  public  by 
making  so  many  speeches  on  your  taking  over  the  Office  of  Director. 
I  believe  you  have  opened  the  windows  and  doors  and  let  the  public 
know  more  about  the  FBI  and  you  as  a  person  than  would  have  other- 
wise been  possible. 

I  have  not  found  your  speeches  to  be  partisan  for  the  Republican 
Party.  I  have  read  them,  scanned  some,  studied  some,  and  I  think  I 
would  say  that  they  were  pro-American  speeches  and  not  pro-Repub- 
lican Party  speeches.  I  know  it  is  very  difficult  to  be  pro-American 
\nthout  being  accused  of  being  pro-administration  or  pro-Republican. 
I  know  to  be  pro-American  you  must  emphasize  the  positive  in  Amer- 
ica and  not  disparage  it.  This  you  have  done  admirably  in  your 
speeches  and  I  congratulate  3'ou  for  them. 

I  do  hope  you  will  continue  to  make  public  speeches  after  your  con- 
fu-mation.  As  you  know,  the  FBI  in  the  eyes  of  our  people  is  a  scary 
and  a  very  overwhelming  and  overpo^^•ering  institution,  and  your 
position  as  Director  of  the  FBI  carries  with  it  awesome  and  fearful 
powers.  That  is  why  you  must  as  a  Director  always  let  the  American 


189 

peoj^le  know  yon  are  human,  that  you  are  communicative,  and  that 
you  are  not  aloof  and  despotic. 

From  your  candid  responses  to  the  hard  questions  which  have  been 
put  to  you  and  the  answers  that  you  have  given  to  them,  I  do  not  see 
any  reason  why  I  shoukl  not  vote  for  your  confirmation. 

However,  I  will  keep  my  mind  open  until  the  end  of  our  hearings 
to  see  whether  this  opimon  will  need  to  be  changed  by  testimony  the 
nature  of  which  I  may  not  be  aware  of  at  this  time. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Gray. 

Mr.  Gray.  Thank  you.  Senator  Fong. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  have  some  questions,  Mr.  Gray,  which  I  did 
not  have  a  chance  to  ask  you  yesterday,  but  Senator  Biu'dick  has  to 
leave  shortly  and  has  one  or  two.  With  the  indulgence  of  my  colleagues, 
he  will  ask  his  and  then  I  will  ask  mine. 

Senator  Burdick.  Mr.  Gray,  earlier  this  morning  you  testified  about 
arrest  records.  As  you  probably  know,  my  subcommittee  has  been 
dealing  with  this  subject.  The  citizens  of  this  Nation  are  all  told  of  a 
presumption  of  innocence  so  actually  an  arrest  record  itself,  standing 
alone,  does  not  mean  anything.  I  think  you  also  testified  that  in  these 
matters  of  the  arrest  records  were  not  made  ])ublic.  What  instances  are 
there  when  they  are  made  available  to  an3'body? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  there  are  just  not  instances  where  they  are  made 
available  to  anybody.  But  a  contributor  may  come  in  with  a  finger- 
print card  and  ask  us  for  a  report  on  this  particular  individual  and 
on  the  card  there  will  be  a  charge,  he  has  been  arrested,  and  a  criminal 
charge  has  been  placed  against  him.  There  will  be  some  reason  for 
arresting  him  and  this  arrest  reason  would  show  ou  the  card.  What 
we  would  do,  Senator  Burdick,  is  to  see  whether  we  had  a  record  on 
this  individual,  we  would  check  it  through  our  fingerprint  section, 
and  if  we  had  one  we  would  look  to  see  what  the  arrest  record  was. 
In  some  of  them,  you  know,  he  may  have  six,  seven,  eight,  nine,  ten, 
all  kinds  of  felonies,  and  you  may  have  over  in  the  disposition  column 
three  or  four  dispositions  and  maybe  the  balance  not  showing  dis- 
positions. Or  you  ma}^  have  a  situation  in  which  when  you  check  you 
find  we  have  no  piior  arrest  record,  this  is  the  first  arrest  and  we  will 
report  that,  or  in  the  other  case 

Senator  Burdick.  To  whom  do  you  report  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  Back  to  the  police  department,  the  contributor  who 
contributed  the  fingerprint  card. 

Senator  Burdick.  Then  the  police  in  Fargo,  N.  Dak.,  would  have 
a  record  of  any  one  of  the  citizens  who  merely  had  been  arrested? 

Mr.  Gray.  They  have  to  be  arrested  for  a  reason,  there  has  to  be  a 
charge  placed  against  them.  That  is  standard  procedure  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  North  Dakota.  I  assume  when  an  individual  is 
arrested  for  criminal  charges  he  is  probably  fingerprinted  and  photo- 
graphed. I  don't  know  wdiat  the  law  is  in  North  Dakota  but  that 
police  agency  in  North  Dakota  would  undoubtedly  proceed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  or  ordinances  of  the  State  or  city  in  North  Dakota. 

Senator  Burdick.  Suppose  that  individual  is  later  acquitted  or 
the  case  is  dropped  for  lack  of  evidence,  is  that  shown  anywhere? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  it  is  shown  provided  that  the  contributor  follows 
through,  and  we  exhort  in  all  of  our  letters^ — which  I  will  put  into  the 
record  as  I  promised  earlier,  I  think  in  response  to  questions  from 

91-331—73—13 


190 

Senator  Timney — we  will  show  the  exhortations  we  have  made. 
We  will  show  that  in  our  police  training  instructors'  lectures  out 
there  in  the  field  we  stress  this.  We  will  show  that  our  Special  Agents 
in  Charge  in  their  speeches  stress  this.  But  we  have  no  sanctions 
available  to  us,  that  is  correct. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  documents  for 
the  record :) 

Mr.  Gray:  I  am  submitting  the  following  documents  for  the  record.  (Letters 
to  All  Fingerprint  Contributors  dated  April  2,  1962;  vSeptember  23,  1966;  No- 
vember 21,  1968;  June  2,  1971;  July  22,  1971;  and  October  2,  1972,  which  pertain 
to  reporting  arrest  disposition  data.)  As  I  have  pointed  out,  there  are  no  procedures 
in  existence  to  assure  Nation-wide  reporting  of  dispositions.  We  have  long  ex- 
horted all  contributors  to  follow  up  with  final  dispositions  on  all  arrests.  Material 
relating  to  this  subject  is  made  available  to  our  field  and  headquarters  personnel 
for  their  use  in  connection  with  police  training  programs,  speaking  engagements 
before  groups  associated  with  the  criminal  justice  system  and  in  their  day-to-day 
contact  with  law  enforcement  officials.  The  FBI  has  actively  advocated  legislation 
at  the  Federal  and  state  levels  making  it  mandatory  for  the  contributors  to  provide 
disposition  data  on  everj'  arrest.  The  International  Association  of  Chiefs  of  Police 
and  the  International  Association  for  Identification  adopted  resolutions  presented 
by  the  FBI  that  their  members  encourage  their  respective  communities  to  support 
enactment  of  legislation  to  mandate  the  reporting  of  final  arrest  disposition  data 
applicable  to  each  arrest  and  that  such  data  be  sent  by  the  arresting  agency,  the 
prosecutor  or  the  court  at  whatever  step  it  occurs  to  the  central  file  at  the  state  or 
national  level  to  which  an  arrest  fingerprint  record  was  submitted.  The  resolutions 
also  encouraged  all  criminal  justice  agencies  to  make  every  effort  to  submit 
disposition  data  in  each  instance  until  such  mandatorj'  legislation  is  enacted.  Some 
twenty-three  states  plus  the  District  of  Columbia  now  have  varying  laws  or  regu- 
lations to  require  contributors  to  report  dispositions,  but  all  are  not  complying 
because  of  staffing  or  budgetary  problems  and  there  are  no  sanctions  for  noncom- 
pliance. 

U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  B.C.,  October  2,  1972. 

Letter  to  All  Fingerprint  Contributors  RE  Identification  Services 

MULTIPLE  SUBMISSIONS  OF  FINGERPRINT  CARDS 

Dear  Sir:  The  FBI  Identification  Division  has  been  striving  to  have  each  arrest 
reported  on  the  identification  record  supported  by  submission  of  fingerprints  and  to 
have  each  arrest  entry  on  the  identification  record  followed  by  the  final  disposition 
of  that  arrest.  When  fingerprint  cards  are  submitted  by  the  arresting  agency  and 
also  by  custodial  agencies  such  as  the  county  jail  or  other  institutions,  the  identi- 
fication records  (rap  sheets)  may  contain  one  or  more  additional  arrest  entries  which 
duplicate  the  original  arrest  card  submitted  by  the  arresting  agency  and  for  which 
a  final  disposition  will  not  be  forthcoming.  There  are  also  some  departments  which 
submit  separate  arrest  fingerprint  cards  on  different  charges  resulting  from  a  single 
arrest  of  an  individual.  The  arrest  fingerprint  card  (FD-249)  is  designed  to  ac- 
commodate additional  charges  resulting  from  a  single  arrest  and  should  be  used  to 
list  such  charges. 

All  multijjle  fingerprint  card  submissions,  in  addition  to  causing  entries  to  be 
placed  in  the  identification  record  for  which  dispositions  will  not  be  forthcoming, 
require  costly  expenditure  of  clerical  manpower  to  locate  fingerprint  jackets  which 
are  out  of  file  for  processing  of  the  arrest  fingerprint  card  submitted  first  by  the 
arresting  agency  and  delay  the  production  schedules  and  procedures  devised  to 
handle  the  large  dsaly  volume  of  fingerprint  cards  received  by  the  Identification 
Division. 

Although  the  multiple  submissions  of  fingerprint  cards  may  provide  a  record  of 
incarceration  prior  to  or  following  court  adjudications,  it  is  believed  such  entries 
into  an  identification  record  serve  little  useful  purpose  in  the  overall  maintenance 
of  a  national  criminal  records  sj'stem.  Your  close  and  continuing  cooperation  in 
eliminating  this  problem  of  multiple  submissions  is  solicited.  If  the  jailer  requires 
a  cop.v  of  the  identification  record,  this  can  easily  be  accommodated  b}'  appropri- 
ate notation  on  the  reverse  side  of  the  arrest  fingerprint  card. 


191 

TELEPHONE    REPLIES 

When  the  appropriate  block  on  the  FD-249  indicates  collect  telephone  reply- 
is  desired,  it  is  requested  that  the  nanxe  of  the  officer  desiring  this  information 
and  his  telephone  extension  also  be  indicated.  This  additional  data  will  enable  us 
to  comply  with  your  request  without  encountering  unnecessary  delays  in  having 
collect  telephone  calls  accepted. 

AUTOMATION     PROCEDURES     REQUIRE     STANDARDIZATION     OF     FINGERPRINT     CARDS 

Your  attention  is  directed  to  our  letter  to  all  fingerprint  contributors  dated 
November  9,  1971,  captioned  "Redesign  of  Arrest  Fingerprint  Card."  All  contri- 
butors have  been  furnished  a  supply  of  the  redesigned  arrest  fingerprint  card, 
FD-249,  (printed  in  red  ink)  which  was  revised  to  accommodate  the  imple- 
mentation of  automated  procedures  in  the  Identification  Division  as  well  as  to 
better  adapt  the  card  to  use  within  the  Computerized  Criminal  History  system. 
The  old  FD-249  (printed  in  black  ink)  does  not  provide  space  to  record  certain 
identification  elements  required  by  these  automated  systems.  Similar  objections 
applj'  to  use  by  some  departments  of  fingerprint  cards  not  prepared  to  speci- 
fications of  the  revised  FD-249  and  not  preprinted  with  the  code  number  re- 
presenting the  address  of  the  contributor  (ORI).  Accordingly,  you  are  requested 
to  destroy  any  remaining  supply  of  the  old  FD-249  arrest  card  and  immediatelj^ 
institute  use  of  the  redesigned  arrest  fingerprint  card  (FD-249)  which  is  printed 
in  red  ink.  Adequate  supplies  of  the  redesigned  card  are  available  and  will  be 
furnished  to  you  with  your  preprinted  address  upon  request. 

The  applicant  fingerprint  card,  FD-258,  is  in  the  process  of  being  revised  and 
will  be  printed  in  blue  ink.  You  should  continue  to  use  the  old  FD-258  (printed 
in  black  ink)  until  you  receive  a  supply  of  the  revised  FD-258. 

The  changes  in  the  colors  of  the  inks  used  to  print  the  revised  arrest  (FD-249) 
and  applicant  (FD-258)  fingerprint  cards  were  made  to  accommodate  optical 
scanning  equipment  which  will  read  certain  printed  codes  and,  in  the  future,  the 
fingerprint  impressions.  This  equipment  has  been  designed  to  detect  only  black 
printer's  ink  and  printed  instructions  and  lines  of  the  revised  cards,  in  their 
respective  colors;  thus  will  not  interfere  with  its  capabilities.  Some  contributors- 
have  submitted  fingerprint  impressions  which  have  been  made  with  other  than 
black  printer's  ink.  In  order  for  the  optical  scanning  equipment  to  function  as 
designed,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  all  fingerprint  impressions  which  are 
submitted  to  the  FBI  Identification  Division  be  made  only  with  black  printer's  ink. 

REPORTING    ARREST   DISPOSITION    DATA 

During  the  recent  annual  meeting  of  the  International  Association  for  Identi- 
fication (lAI)  held  in  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin,  July  31  through  August  3,  1972^ 
the  following  resolution  was  approved: 

RESOLUTION 

Whereas  incomplete  criminal  identification  records  are  of  grave  con- 
cern to  the  general  public,  the  courts,  and  all  agencies  which  comprLse 
the  criminal  justice  system,  be  it  resolved: 

(1)  That  lAI  members  encourage  their  respective  communities  to 
support  the  enactment  of  legislation  to  mandate  the  reporting  of  final 
arrest  disposition  data  applicable  to  each  arrest  and  that  such  data  be  sent 
by  the  arresting  agency,  the  prosecutor,  or  the  court  at  whatever  stage 
it  occurs  to  the  central  file  at  the  state  or  National  level  to  which  an  arrest 
fingerprint  record  was  submitted. 

(2)  That  until  such  mandatory  legislation  becomes  law  appropriate 
criminal  justice  agencies  make  every  effort  to  submit  arrest  disposition 
data  in  each  instance. 

As  the  central  repository  of  identification  data  in  this  country,  the  FBI  Identi- 
fication Division  urges  each  contributor  to  follow  and  report  the  final  dispositiont 
of  each  arrest  made  by  your  department.  Dismissals  and  "not  guilty"  adjudications 
are  as  necessary  as  conviction  data  in  completing  an  identification  record  of  an. 
individual  so  his  record  may  reflect  accurately  the  final  result  of  charges  filed 
alleging  violation  of  the  law.  It  is  the  incomplete  record  that  invites  criticism  of 
our  entire  criminal  justice  records  system. 


192 

The  Identification  Division  has  noted  a  marked  increase  in  submissions  of 
disposition  data  since  distribution  of  the  revised  Final  Disposition  Report,  Pi,-S4, 
was  made  in  July,  1971.  This  form  was  designed  to  accompany  the  arrestee's 
record  on  the  pending  charge(s)  until  final  adjudication  resulted  and  thus  permits 
the  court,  the  prosecutor  or  the  police  to  complete  the  form  at  whatever  level  the 
final  disposition  of  the  charge (s)  was  made.  Although  an  increased  number  of 
Final  Disposition  Rej^orts  have  been  received,  many  departments  continue  to 
afford  this  vital  link  in  our  criminal  records  system  low  priority.  You  are  lequested 
to  bring  this  matter  to  the  attention  of  all  personnel  having  responsibility  for 
reporting  disposition  data.  Also,  this  form  should  be  used  to  show  any  change  in 
the  nature  of  the  charge  for  which  conviction  s\'as  obtained  from  the  original 
charge  apoearing  on  the  arrest  fingerprint  card. 
Very  truly  yours, 

L.  Patrick  Gray  III,  Acting  Director. 


U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  B.C.,  July  22,  1971. 

Letter  to  All  Fingerprint  Contributors  Re  FBI  Identification  Services 

Dear  Sir:  The  follo^\ing  items  are  of  immediate  concern  to  all  of  us  in  law 
.enforcement.  We  solicit  your  cooperation  in  implementing  those  changes  requested. 

FBI  number 

Effective  immediately  all  criminal  fingerprint  Cards  requiring  an  answer  will 
be  given  an  FBI  number  if  one  has  not  been  assigned  previously.  As  you  know, 
the  practice  in  the  past  has  been  to  assign  such  a  number  upon  receipt  of  the 
second  set  of  prints.  A  number  now  will  be  assigned  vq^on  receipt  of  the  first  set. 
This  change  is  deemed  desirable  in  view  of  the  Computerized  Criminal  History 
Program  scheduled  for  implementation  this  November,  wherein  the  FBI  number 
is  a  necessary  element  for  entry  into  the  system.  The  new  procedure  also  slK)uld 
materially  aid  in  curtailing  multiple  fingerprint  submissions  applicable  to  the 
same  arrest  or  incarceration.  Such  submissions  lead  to  the  costly  and  time-con- 
suming task  of  locating  fingerprint  jackets  which  are  out  of  file  as  a  result  of  the 
original  fingerprint  submission.  The  key  to  alleviating  this  problem  of  multiple 
submissions  is  close  cooperation  and  effort  by  all. 

DISCLOSURE    OF   FBI   IDENTIFICATION    RECORDS    TO    SUBJECTS 

There  has  been  some  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  certain  fingerprint 
contributors  concerning  disclosure  of  the  contents  of  FBI  identification  records 
to  the  subjects  of  those  records.  Some  law  enforcement  agencies  have  been  under 
the  impression  that  they  would  be  denied  future  access  to  FBI  identification 
records  if  they  were  to  comply  with  a  court  order  directing  that  a  subject  be 
permitted  to  examine  the  contents  of  his  own  record.  Whereas  the  records  them- 
selves, or  copies  thereof,  should  not  be  furnisiied  and  the  caution  to  treat  such 
records  for  official  use  only  should  be  strictly  adhered  to,  certainly  compliance 
with  a  court  order  constitutes  an  official  use.  Please  insure  there  is  no  misunder- 
standing within  your  own  agency  or  on  the  part  of  other  criminal  justice  agencies 
that  the  FBI  does  not  object  to  disclosure  of  the  contents  of  an  FBI  identification 
record  to  the  subject  of  that  record  where  disclosure  is  made  pursuant  to  court 
order  in  any  pending  criminal  or  civil  case. 

NON-FEDERAL   APPLICANT   FINGERPRINTS 

Acting  on  remand  in  Menard  v.  Mitchell,  430  F  2d  486  (1970),  United  States 
District  Judge  Gerhard  A.  Gesell,  District  of  Columbia,  on  June  1.1,  1971,  handed 
down  a  Memorandum  Opinion  in  this  case  (Civil  Action  No.  39-68)  whicli  pro- 
hibits the  FBI  from  disseminating  identification  records  in  response  to  finger- 


193 

prints  submitted  by  state  and  local  law  enforcement  and  other  government 
agencies  in  connection  with  non-law  enforcement  purposes.  This  prohibition  also 
extends  to  Federally  insured  banks  and  savings  and  loan  institutions  as  well  as 
railroad  police.  This  means  that  effective  immediately  the  FBI  can  no  longer 
accept  for  processing  fingerprints  taken  in  connection  with  licensing  or  local 
or  state  employment  which  were  formerly  submitted  directly  to  the  FBI  from  the 
regulatory  agency  or  institution  or  through  a  local  law  enforcement  agency.  We 
will  continue  to  process  applicant  prints  where  the  position  sought  is  directly 
with  a  state  or  local  law  enforcement  or  correctional  agency,  as  such  processing 
directly  serves  a  law  enforcement  purpose.  There  are  no  other  exceptions. 

In  examining  the  issue  of  historic  statutory  authority  for  the  Government  to 
engage  in  such  practice,  the  court  observed  "it  is  abundantly  clear  that  Congress 
never  intended  to  or  in  fact  did  authorize  dissemination  of  arrest  records  to  any 
state  or  local  agency  for  jourposes  of  employment  or  licensing  checks."  He  further 
noted  "the  Bureau  (FBI)  needs  legislative  guidance  and  there  must  be  a  national 
policy  developed  in  this  area  which  will  have  built  into  it  adequate  sanctions  and 
administrative  safeguards.  It  is  not  the  function  of  the  courts  to  make  these  judg- 
inents,  but  the  courts  must  call  a  halt  until  the  legislature  acts.  Thus  tlie  court 
finds  that  the  Bureau  is  without  authority  to  disseminate  arrest  records  outside 
the  Federal  Government  for  employment,  licensing  or  related  purposes." 

In  its  study  and  review  of  the  court's  action,  the  FBI  has  sought  and  obtained 
guidance  and  interpretation  from  the  Department  of  Justice.  There  appears  to  be 
no  choice  but  to  cease  processing  all  types  of  non-Federal  applicant  fingerprints. 
You  will  be  promptly  advised  of  any  Congressional  clarification  of  the  Bureau's 
authority  in  this  area.  In  the  meanwhile  all  such  fingerprint  submissions  will  be 
returned  to  the  contributing  agency, 

ARREST  DISPOSITION  DA'fA 

The  response  to  our  letter  of  June  2,  1971,  urging  the  submission  of  final  arresi 
disposition  data  has  been  most  gratifying.  We  have  received  numerous  favorable 
replies  pledging  full  cooperation,  offei'ing  suggestions  and  asking  questions.  One 
question  frequently  raised  is  whether  arrest  fingerprint  cards  should  be  held  by  the- 
contributor  until  final  disposition  is  known,  which  in  some  instances  may  take' 
months  and  even  years.  The  answer,  of  course,  is  to  submit  arrest  fingerprint- 
cards  promptly  and  follow  with  disposition  information  when  it  is  available.  In- 
this  way  you  can  receive  any  identification  record  the  individual  may  have  in 
response  to  your  fingerprint  submission,  and  fugitives  against  whose  fingerprints 
stops  have  been  placed  in  our  files  will  be  promptly  identified.  Another  point  not 
vniiversally  understood  is  that  disposition  information  should  only  be  sent  to  the 
FBI  when  arrest  fingerprints  for  the  same  offense  were  forwarded  previously. 
Otherwise,  we  have  nothing  in  our  files  to  support  the  final  disposition  supplied. 
A  third  point  I  want  to  stress  is  that  disposition  submissions  should  be  individual 
separate  communications  and  not  in  list  form.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  forms 
are  filed  in  individual  jackets  relating  to  each  subject  of  an  FBI  number. 

In  our  continuing  effort  to  obtain  complete  reporting  of  final  dispositions,  we 
have  redesigned  the  final  disposition  report  (form  R-84),  a  sample  of  which  is  set 
forth  in  reduced  size  as  an  attachment  to  this  communication.  The  most  radical 
change  is  that  as  now  designed,  the  form  is  to  accompany  the  case  file  (or  the 
arresting  officer's  report)  so  that  the  final  disposition  can  be  reported  in  each 
case  at  whatever  level  it  occurs — police,  prosecutor,  or  court.  We  recognize  that  the 
adoption  of  such  procedure  will  require  an  educational  program  with  criminal 
justice  agencies.  The  disposition  form  will  follow  the  arrestee's  record  on  the  cur- 
rent charge (s)  until  final  action  is  taken  as  a  result  of  his  arrest.  If  the  case  goes  to 
the  prosecutor,  his  office  should  complete  the  form  and  submit  it  to  the  FBI 
Identification  Division  when  the  matter  is  resolved  at  his  level.  If  court  action  is 
required,  the  prosecutor's  office  or  clerk  of  the  court  should  complete  the  form  and 
forward  it.  Note  particularly  the  provision  for  four-finger  fingerprint  impressions 
and  instruction  number  two  on  the  reverse  side  of  the  form.  This  provision  was 
included  in  anticipation  of  a  possible  future  requirement  that  records  of  con- 
victions in  the  National  repository  he  supported  by  fingerprints.  Also,  of  course, 
more  p-isitive  controls  are  thereby  provided  for  the  entire  svstem.  The  actual  size 
of  the  form  will  be  the  same  as  a  fingerprint  card,  namely,  8  inches  by  8  inches. 


194 

For  the  sake  of  uniformity  and  standardization,  particularly  in  light  of  the 
tremendous  volumes  of  forms  handled  by  the  FBI  Identification  Division,  it  is 
essential  that  the  new  form  be  utilized  by  all  contributors  in  reporting  final 
dispositions.  The  new  R-84  form  is  being  printed  on  green  stock  and  as  soon  as 
copies  are  available  an  initial  supply  will  be  sent  to  each  fingerprint  contributor. 
Thereafter,  you  should  order  the  form  as  you  need  additional  copies. 
Very  truly  yours, 

John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director. 
Enclosure. 


Leave  Blank ' 


,R-84(Rev.  6-29'71)  FINAL   DISPOSITION   REPORT 

1  Hole:  This  vital  report  must  ne  propori^H  on  each  individual  whose  arreat  rmgerprints  have  been  forwarrfcd 

.to  the  FBI  Identificfltion  Division  without  rmal  disposition  noted  thereon.    If  no  tinal  disposition  is  Qvail- 

'able  to  arresting  aRoncy,  also  obtain  subject's  right  four  linger  impressions  or.  this  form,  complete  left  side 

^aiid  forward  the  form  whtn  case  referred  to  prosecuior  nud/or  courts.    Agency  on  notice  .t.-.  to  fuial  disposition  should  complete  this 

■  fomi  ;md  submit  to:    Diiecfor,  FBI,  Woshingfon,  D.  C.    20537,  Attention:    Identilicotion  Division. 

<Soe  instnictionfl  on  reverse  side) 


FBI  No. 

Final  Disposition  &;  Date    ;                                 ■■*'''■      i   j 
!If  convicted  or  subject  pleaded  guilty  to  lesser  charge,  include. 
this  modifi      ~-»ll  with  disposition.) 

Name  on  Fingerprint  Card  Subtnitted  to  FBI 
Lost                              '  First 

Middln 

■ 

If  FBI  No.  UnknoTO.  Furnish: 

Snv 

'.F'ingerprint 

Stale  Bureau  No.  .:^ 

Tliis  Form  Submitted  By: 
|.(Name,  Title,  Agency,  City  «t  Stole)  ^ 

tlonlributor  of  Fingorprinta 

AncatNo. 


Dal«  Arrested  or  Received 


OffbOM*  Chnrged  at  Arrest 


'^i  mature 


■vDol* 


Title' 


I — I  COURT  ORDEREDEXPUNGEMENT:       „    . 
Return  Arrest  Fingerprint  Card  to  Contributing  Agency; . 
Certified  or  Aulhenlicoted  Copy  of  Court  Order  Attached. 


Right  Four  Fingers  Taken  Simultaneously.  ,- 


Instructions 

1.  The  purpose  of  this  report  is  to  record  the  initial  data  of  an  individual's 
arrest  and  thereafter  secure  the  final  disposition  of  the  arrest  at  the  earliest 
possible  time  from  either  the  arresting  agencv,  the  prosecutor  or  the  court  having 
jurLsdiction.  (INTERIM  DISPOSITION  INFORMATION,  e.g.,  RELEASED 
ON  BOND,  SHOULD  NOT  BE  SUBMITTED.)  The  SUBJECT'S  NAME, 
CONTRIBUTOR  AND  ARREST  NUMBER  should  be  exactly  the  same  as 
they  appear  on  the  fingerprint  card  IN  THE  FILES  OF  THE  FBI.  The  FBI 
number  should  be  indicated,  if  known.  Agency  ultimately  making  final  disposition 
will  complete  and  mail  form  to:  FBI  Identification  Division,  Washington,  D.C. 
20537. 


195 

2.  The  arresting  agency  should  fill  in  all  arrest  data  on  left  side  of  form  and 
obtain  the  finger  impressions  of  the  right  four  fingers  simultaneously.  This  should 
be  done  at  the  same  time  as  the  full  set  of  fingerprints  are  taken  on  the  arrest 
fingerprint  card.  If  the  arrest  is  disposed  of  by  the  arresting  agency,  as  where  the 
arrestee  is  released  without  charge,  then  the  arresting  agency  should  fill  in  this 
final  disposition  and  mail  form  to  FBI  Identification  Division.  Of  cour.se,  if  final 
disposition  is  known  when  arrest  fingerprint  card  is  submitted  it  should  be  noted 
thereon  and  this  form  is  then  unnecessary.  In  the  event  the  case  goes  to  the 
prosecutor,  this  form  should  be  forwarded  to  the  prosecutor  with  arrestee's  case 
file. 

3.  The  prosecutor  should  complete  the  form  to  show  final  disposition  at  the 
prosecution  level  if  the  matter  is  not  being  referred  for  court  action  and  thereafter 
submit  form  directly  to  FBI  Identification  Division.  If  court  action  required, 
the  prosecutor  should  forward  form  with  case  file  to  court  having  jurisdiction. 

4.  The  court  should  complete  this  form  as  to  final  court  disposition  such  as  when 
arrested  person  is  acquitted,  case  is  dismissed,  on  conviction  and  when  sentence 
imposed  or  sentence  suspended  and  person  placed  on  probation. 

.5.  When  arrested  person  convicted  or  enters  guilty  plea  to  lesser  or  different 
offense  than  that  charged  when  originally  arrested,  this  information  should  be 
clearly  indicated. 

6.  if  subsequent  action  taken  to  seal  or  expunge  record,  attach  certified  or 
authenticated  copy  of  court  order  to  this  form  so  that  FBI  can  return  arrestee's 
fingerprints  to  original  contributor. 

7.  It  is  vitally  important  for  completion  of  subject's  record  in  FBI  Identification 
Division  files  that  Final  Disposition  Report  be  submitted  in  every  instance  where 
•fingerprints  previously  forwarded  without  final  disposition  noted  thereon. 

U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  B.C.,  Jane  2,  1971. 

Letter  to  All  Fingerprint  Contributors  Re  Reporting  Final  Dispositions 

Dear  Sir:  We  ask  your  special  attention  at  this  time  to  the  urgent  need  to  re- 
port a  final  disposition  for  each  charge  submitted  to  the  FBI  Identification  Divi- 
r;ion  by  fingerprint  card.  We  have  made  this  request  previously,  but  never  under 
conditions  of  such  urgencj-  as  those  which  now  prevail. 

The  national  criminal  identification  system  is  now  the  object  of  the  most  serious 
attacks  that  have  been  launched  against  it  since  the  system  was  inaugurated  in 
1924.  These  attacks  vary  somewhat  in  form  and  purpose,  but  they  direct  their  fire 
mainly  toward  the  identification  record  that  is  incomplete  for  lack  of  dispositions 
shown.  Such  records  are  alleged  to  be  at  best  inaccurate,  misleading,  and  of  no 
value,  and  at  worst,  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  person  on  whom  the  record  was 
compiled. 

The  attacks  are  stated  in  several  different  ways.  A  number  of  civil  suits  have 
been  filed,  all  undecided  as  yet,  demanding  that  the  FBI  cease  dissemination  of 
any  part  of  any  record  that  is  incomplete  for  lack  of  disposition  shown,  and/or 
totally  expunge  from  the  record  any  notation  of  arrest  or  charge  unsupported  by  a 
disposition  that  is  somewhere  available  but  not  shown  on  the  record.  These  attacks 
have  come  from  such  diverse  sources  as  persons  who  allege  loss  of  employment  be- 
cause of  an  incomplete  identification  record,  prejudicial  effect  on  an  attempt  to 
obtain  parole,  or  prejudice  and  harm  for  some  other  reason. 

The  courts  now  are  beginning  to  express  some  concern  over  these  incomplete 
criminal  identification  records,  and  related  problems.  In  one  case  an  applicant 
for  private  employment  listed  fourteen  arrests,  none  of  which  led  to  convictions, 
with  the  result  that  he  was  not  hired.  He  alleged  that  the  use  of  such  information 
to  deny  employment  violated  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  1964.  The  Federal  court 
held  for  the  plaintiff,  and  enjoined  the  employer  from  using  such  information  as  a 
basis  for  denying  employment.  The  court  said,  in  pertinent  part,  that  "information 
concerning  a  prospective  employee's  record  of  arrests  without  convictions  is  irrele- 
vant to  his  suitability  or  qualifications  for  employment."  (Emphasis  added).  The 
court  said  further  that  nothing  in  its  order,  liowev^er,  would  prohibit  the  employer 
from  complying  with  any  requirement  of  national  security  clearance  regulations, 
nor  prohibit  the  employer  "from  seeking,  ascertaining,  considering,  or  using 
information  concerning  criminal  convictions  of  applicants  or  existing  employees." 
(Emphasis  added).  Gregory  v.  Litton  Systems,  Inc.,  316  F.  Supp.  401  (1970). 
The  significance  of  this  decision  to  our  immediate  problem  is  obvious. 


196 

It  is  worth  noting,  also,  that  Mr.  Justice  Douglas,  dissenting  in  Tarver  v.  Smith, 
a  case  not  directly  related  to  our  problem,  in  which  the  Supreme  Court  denied 
certiorari  on  Maj^  24,  1971,  said,  in  part,  that  "A  file  may  show  that  an  individual 
was  arrested.  But  will  it  show  that  the  arrest  was  unconstitutional  because  it 
was  solely  for  purposes  of  investigation?  Or  that  the  charges  were  dropped?  Or 
that  a  jury  acquitted  him?"  These  remarks  obviously  foreshadow  future  questions 
on  the  use  of  a  criminal  identification  record  that  is  incomplete  for  want  of  final 
dispositions  shown. 

Questions  similar  to  those  raised  in  Gregory  and  Tarver,  above,  were  also  brought 
out  in  Menard  v.  Mitchell,  430  F  2d  486  (1970),  a  Federal  appellate  decision 
which  remanded  the  plaintiff's  demand  for  total  expungement  of  an  allegedly 
inaccurate  identification  record  back  to  the  trial  court  for  full  development  of 
the  facts. 

No  further  argument  is  necessary  to  prove  that  law  enforcement  is  now  faced 
with  a  new  problem  of  serious  dimensions.  It  extends  to  all  lawful  uses  of  the 
criminal  identification  record,  not  to  employment  situations  only.  If  the  FBI,  as 
the  custodian  of  these  records,  should  be  required  to  expunge  all  arrest  notations 
for  which  dispositions  are  available  but  not  reported,  every  element  of  the  criminal 
justice  system  will  be  handicapped,  deprived  of  infcjrmation  pertinent  to  the 
protection  of  society.  The  absence  of  pertinent  arrest  data  which  could  have  been 
shown,  had  only  the  final  disposition  been  reported,  will  handicap  the  investi- 
gating officer,  the  prosecutor  and,  where  conviction  is  had,  the  sentencing  judge 
and  the  prison  and  parole  authorities. 

There  is  an  answer  to  this  problem,  one  answer  and  one  only.  Report  the  final 
disposition  in  each  case  at  whatever  level  it  occurs — police,  prosecutor,  or  court. 
Each  and  every  contributing  agency  should  gear  its  operations  as  necessary  to 
this  end.  The  public  interest  in  safety  from  criminal  attack  demands  it,  as  well 
as  our  own  interest,  and  the  interests  of  other  elements  in  the  criminal  justice 
sj'stem,  in  performing  professionally  and  efficiently  toward  that  same  objective. 

I  ask  your  complete  and  continuing  cooperation  in  this  mutual  effort  for  the 
public  good.  Specifically,  I  ask  that  you  expend  extra  effort  to  obtain  disposition 
data  and  that,  where  necessary,  you  devise  new  ways  of  insuring  that  this  essential 
information  is  collected  and  made  available  to  complete  the  identification  records 
at  both  state  and  national  levels. 
Very  truly  yours, 

John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director. 

U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  B.C.,  November  21,  1968. 

Letter  to  All  Fingerprint  Contributors  Re  FBI  Identification 

Services 

Dear  Sir:  Upon  receipt  of  the  final  disposition  of  an  arrest  previously  reported 
to  the  Identification  Division  by  means  of  a  fingerprint  card,  it  is  necessary  to 
associate  the  disposition  with  the  correct  arrest  record.  In  instances  where  the 
local  arrest  number  or  FBI  number  is  not  furnished,  every  effort  has  been  made 
in  the  past  to  correctly  identify  the  incoming  disposition  by  conducting  searches 
in  our  name  files  using  available  data  on  the  disposition  form  such  as  name  of 
subject,  fingerprint  classification,  date  and  description  of  charge  and  name  of 
contributor.  Because  of  the  tremendous  work  load  in  the  Division,  it  is  no  longer 
feasible  to  conduct  extensive  searches  in  our  name  files  in  an  effort  to  identify 
dispositions  without  identifying  numbers.  Accordingl}^  effective  January  1,  1969, 
dispositions  received  without  a  local  arrest  number  and  fingerprint  classification  or 
an  FBI  number,  will  not  be  processed  and  will  be  returned  to  the  contributing 
agency. 

One  of  the  streamlining  procedures  employed  in  the  Division  is  the  preparation 
of  certain  index  cards  for  our  name  files  by  copying  a  portion  of  the  fingerprint 
card  with  appropriate  reproduction  equipment.  It  is,  therefore,  imperative  that  the 
name  of  the  subject  be  typed  or  plainly  printed  and  not  written  in  longhand  on 
the  fingerprint  card. 

Your  full  cooperation  in  the  above  matters  would  be  very  much  appreciated. 
Very  truly  yours, 

John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director. 


197 

U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  D.C.,  September  2S,  1966. 

Letter  to  All  Fingerprint  Contributors  Re  Identification 

Records 

Dear  Sir:  The  value  of  reporting  to  our  Identification  Division  the  disposition 
of  an  arrest  has  been  discussed  in  prior  letters  to  all  fingerprint  contributors. 
By  letter  dated  April  2,  1962,  the  cooperation  of  all  contributors  was  sohcited  in 
reporting  only  final  and  not  interim  dispositions  such  as  "held  for  grand  jury," 
"pending,"  etc. 

Since  the  final  disposition  of  an  arrest  is  a  most  important  part  of  an  identifi- 
cation record  and  serves  to  complete  the  history  of  the  offense  in  the  minds  of 
all  who  later  review  the  record,  your  cooperation  in  furnishing  final  dispositions 
is  again  being  requested.  Report  such  dispo-iitloas,  if  known,  on  each  fingerprint 
card  submitted.  If  unknown  when  fingerprint  card  mailed,  withhold  submission 
of  disposition  until  case  resolved  and  reply  to  fingerprint  card  has  been  received 
and  then  use  our  disposition  form   R-84  whenever  possible. 

If  our  reply  bears  an  FBI  number,  this  number  should  be  included  on  the 
disposition  sheet.  In  the  absence  of  an  FBI  number,  as  in  the  case  where  no  prior 
record  was  located  and  you  received  our  form  1-A,  make  certain  to  include  on 
disposition  sheet  the  name  exactly  as  it  appeared  on  the  fingerprint  card,  finger- 
print classification,  and  your  arrest  number.  In  instances  of  this  type  a  number  of 
contributors  are  returning  form  1-A  instead  of  submitting  the  fingerprint  classifi- 
cation and  arrest  number.  This  greatly  facilitates  identifying  the  record  in  our 
files  and  I  would  like  to  encourage  all  contributors  to  follow  this  practice  whenever 
possible. 

Very  truly  yours, 

John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director. 

U.S.  Department  of  Justice, 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  D.C.,  April  2,  1962. 

Letter  to  All  Fingerprint  Contributors  Re  Duplicate  Fingerprint  Sub- 
missions Arrest  Disposition  Data 

Dear  Sir:  Our  Identification  Division  has  experienced  a  ten  per  cent  rise  in 
fingerprint  receipts  thus  far  this  fiscal  year.  Adoption  of  streamlining  measures  by 
the  FBI  plus  strict  adherence  to  uniform  procedures  by  all  participating  agencies 
are  the  only  two  practical  ways  of  combatting  this  increased  work  load. 

We  certainly  wish  to  express  our  appreciation  to  the  many  agencies  which  co- 
operated so  willingly  in  curtailing  duplicate  fingerprint  submissions  in  response  to 
our  letter  of  March  28,  1961.  Substantial  advances  have  been  made  in  this  field 
which  are  most  gratifying. 

For  the  benefit  of  all,  I  would  like  to  again  briefly  state  our  views  as  regards 
multiple  fingerprinting.  Many  jurisdictions  require  fingerprinting  as  a  mandatory 
procedure  incidental  to  an  arrest  or  incarceration.  The  FBI's  program  to  eliminate 
duplicate  fingerprint  submissions  is  not  intended  to  conflict  with  these  require- 
ments. We  are  merelj'  asking  that  law  enforcement  agencies  in  the  same  area 
work  together  to  insure  that  only  one  set  of  fingerprints  for  each  arrest  or  incar- 
ceration is  forwarded  for  search  by  our  Identification  Division. 

Multiple  fingerprint  submissions  are  unnecessarily  expensive  since  usually  the 
fingerprint  jacket  relating  to  a  particular  individual  is  out  of  file  when  the  second 
and  possibly  the  third  fingerprint  card  arrives.  To  locate  the  jacket,  it  then  be- 
comes a  costly  and  time-consuming  task.  In  some  localities  the  arresting  agency, 
and  in  others,  the  city  or  county  jail  have  helped  by  stamping  the  reverse  side  of 
each  fingerprint  submission  with  a  notation  to  send  a  copy  of  our  reply  to  one  or 
more  interested  agencies,  thus  eliminating  fingerprint  submissions  by  those 
agencies.  The  duplication  problem  has  also  been  solved  by  having  the  first  agency 
submitting  prints  request  multiple  copies  of  our  reply  which,  in  turn,  are  then  dis- 
seminated locally  as  required.  We  appreciate  that  procedures  will  vary  in  different 
areas  and  while  we  are  always  willing  to  be  consulted  on  unique  situations,  the 
final  decision  as  to  what  is  done  rests  with  the  agencies  primarilj^  concerned.  I 
firmly  believe  that  the  key  to  eliminating  multiple  fingerprint  submissions  for  the 
same  arrest  or  incarceration  lies  in  close  cooperation  and  a  concerted  effort  by  all. 


198 

Another  sphere  in  which  you  can  help  is  to  use  the  standard  forms  which  we 
provide  free  of  charge  to  all  agencies  utihzing  the  facihties  of  our  Identification 
Division.  These  forms  are  listed  on  the  cover  page  of  each  Law  Enforcement 
Bulletin  Insert.  The  use  of  other  than  FBI  standard  forms  serves  to  retard  our 
processing  of  identification  data. 

One  form  in  particular  which  we  feel  deserves  your  special  consideration  is  the 
Disposition  Sheet,  Form  R-84.  We  have  observed  that  many  arrest  dispositions 
have  been  submitted  which  are  not  final,  such  as  "held  for  grand  jury,"  "released 
on  bond"  and  "pending."  Other  dispositions,  such  as  "District  Court  appeal" 
and  "issuance  of  a  bench  warrant,"  while  technically  final  as  far  as  the  contributor 
of  prints  is  concerned,  add  nothing  of  value  to  the  FBI  record.  We  consider  these 
to  be  interim  prosecutive  steps  and  do  not  post  them.  Some  further  action  obvi- 
ously must  be  taken  in  these  instances  before  the  case  may  be  considered  finally 
closed.  By  continuing  to  submit  such  interim  rej^orts,  man-hours  are  consumed 
by  your  staflf  and  ours  which  could  be  more  productively  spent  on  other  work. 

Additional  problems  encountered  in  connection  with  some  arrest  dispositions 
are;  (1)  illegibility,  (2)  use  of  colloquial  terms  not  understood  in  other  sections 
of  the  country,  (3)  use  of  numerical  code  citations  and  incomplete  data.  If  our 
identification  records  are  to  be  meaningful  to  the  thousands  of  law  enforcement 
and  governmental  officials  who  will  be  reviewing  them  for  many  years  to  come, 
we  should  insure  that  disposition  data  reported  will  be  readily  understood  in  all 
parts  of  the  country.  With  regard  to  incomplete  dispositions,  the  main  oversight 
is  "period  of  incarceration."  This,  of  course,  is  very  pertinent  to  any  identification 
record.  It  is  realized  that  in  some  states  the  period  of  incarceration  is  not  fixed 
by  the  court.  In  such  instances  dispositions  submitted  should  show  the  sentence 
as  "indeterminate." 

Thank  you  for  your  continued  cooperation  in  these  and  all  other  matters 
designed  to  improve  our  fingerprint  identification  services. 
Very  truly  yours, 

John  Edgar  Hoover,  Director. 

Senator  Burdick.  Do  you  have  any  policy  in  regard  to  releasing 
this  information  to  credit  bureaus? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  do  not  release  it. 

Senator  Burdick.  You  do  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  FBI  does  not;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Burdick.  If  it  showed  up  in  their  report  it  is  an  assumption 
that  it  came  from  a  police  station? 

Air.  Gray.  Yes,  and  if  we  know  about  it — it  could  be  that  the  police 
station,  the  police  agency,  would  be  subject  to  our  o^^^l  sanctions — we 
would  say,  "We  are  not  going  to  service  you  any  longer  if  you  are 
going  to  behave  in  this  manner." 

Senator  Burdick.  So  far  as  your  office  is  concerned  you  release  this 
information  only  to  law  enforcement  agencies? 

Mr.  Gray.  Only  to  a  contributor,  yes. 

Senator  Burdick.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Mr.  Gray,  some  of  the  areas  which  I  will  touch 
on  have  been  touched  on  by  other  members  of  the  committee  but,  with 
your  indulgence  and  patience,  we  ^nll  review  some  of  these  areas.  I 
am  sure  the  fact  that  you  have  thought  about  them  and  responded  to 
them  perhaps  even  make  the  responses  easier  for  you. 

As  m3^  colleagues  have  pointed  out,  there  has  been  some  question 
about  the  politicization  of  the  FBI,  and  Senator  Bayh  and  others 
have  queried  you  about  different  statements  and  speeches  and  the 
appropriateness  of  such  speeches,  and  I  think  one  of  the  speeches, 
which  may  have  been  included  in  the  record,  which  I  imagine  perhaps 
sets  out  in  as  great  detail  as  any  your  commitment  toward  the 
administration,  was  the  one  that  you  gave  on  the  25th  of  Jul}"  1969, 


199 

when  you  were  tlie  Executive  Assistant  to  the  Secretary  of  HEW,  to 
the  appointees  of  the  Department.  Do  you  remember  that  speech  at 
all? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  I  do,  I  wTote  every  word  of  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Then  I  believe  a  national  magazine  took  certain 
quotations  of  that  speech  and,  at  a  later  time,  you  indicated  that  the 
quotes  had  been  taken  out  of  context. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  then  you  issued 

Mr.  Gray.  I  prepared  a  memorandum. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  prepared  a  memorandum,  and  in  that 
memorandum  you  quoted  at  some  length  the  preceding  paragraphs.  I 
believe  I  have  the  copy  of  that  memorandum  here,  and  I  will  read 
those  earlier  paragraphs,  and  if  for  some  reason  or  another  it  does  not 
follow — I  see  you  have  the  copy  of  the  speech. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  I  do,  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Now,  you  indicated  in  a  press  release  that  the 
quotes  had  been  taken  out  of  context.  If  the  Time  article  and  your 
memorandum  have  not  been  included  in  the  record,  we  wdll  include 
that  as  part  of  the  record: 

Mr.  Gray.  All  right.  Senator. 

(The  documents  referred  to  follow:) 

Address  by  L.  Patrick  Gray  III,  Executive  Assistant  to  the  Secretary, 
Department  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare,  to  all  Appointees  in 
THE  Department  at  the  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  Level  and  Below, 
July  2.5,   1969 

I  am  going  to  talk  to  you  about  .some  lessons  learned  in  the  first  six  (6)  months. 
The  approach  will  be  practical,  but  threaded  throughout  will  be  the  lofty  ideals 
and  the  great  concerns  we  have  as  we  join  together  in  HEW  to  serve  the  President, 
the  Secretary  and  the  people  of  our  Nation. 

At  the  risk  of  being  tagged  here  and  now  as  an  over  30,  "turned  off"  reactionary, 
let  me  emphasize  to  you  the  importance  of  the  concept  that  we  are  here  to  serve, 
not  to  be  served — that  we  are  here  to  serve,  not  to  enhance  our  own  perfectly 
normal,  human  selfish  interests.  This  may  be  out  of  tune  with  some  of  the  thinking 
surrounding  us  today. 

Each  of  us  is  possessed  of  our  own  desires,  ambitions  and  goals.  This  is  normal. 
This  is  commendable.  At  the  same  time,  when  we  embark  upon  a  career  in  the 
service  of  our  government,  whether  that  career  is  to  be  short  term  or  long  term, 
we  must  be  quite  willing  to  subjugate  our  own  personal  goals  to  a  deep,  personal 
commitment  to  serve  our  President,  our  Secretary,  and  our  Nation. 

This  commitment  must  be  our  homing  beacon  throughout  our  career  in  the 
service  of  our  government. 

Each  one  of  us  is  here  in  HEW  because  Richard  Nixon  was  elected  to  the  high 
oflfice  of  President  of  the  United  States.  Further  we  are  here  because  Secretary 
Finch  has  seen  fit  to  place  trust  and  confidence  in  us  and  to  approve  our  selection 
to  fill  a  position  in  HEW. 

In  short  we  owe  our  positions  to  the  capability  of  the  President  to  come  off 
the  mat,  so  to  speak,  and  drive  through  hard,  vigorous  years  of  campaigning  to 
win  the  nomination  of  the  Republican  Party,  and  then  go  on  to  win  the  Presidency 
of  the  United  States  with  the  valiant  help  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dedicated, 
hardworking  supporters,  campaign  workers,  and  contributors. 

So  also  are  we  here  because  Secretary  Finch  has  seen  fit  to  ask  us  to  serve  with 
him  and  to  help  him  move  this  Department  forward  as  he  and  the  President  seek 
the  solutions  to  the  people  problems  which,  if  not  solved,  might  well  rupture  and 
destroy  the  society  which  the  people  of  our  Nation  have  created. 

Obviously,  we  are  a  chosen  few,  an  elite  group — make  no  mistake  about  it — 
there  are  thousands  of  Republicans  who  are  knocking  at  the  door  and  who  would 
be  pleased  to  be  in  our  positions. 


200 

Appreciate  this  hard  fact  of  life.  Appreciate  the  fact  that  every  single  member 
of  the  opposite  political  party  is  working  hard  day  and  night  to  ensure  that  the 
President  of  the  United  States  is  hampered  and  harassed  in  carrying  out  his 
programs  and  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  not  reelected  to  serve  a 
second  term. 

This  is  a  real  hard  political  fact  of  life.  This  is  in  keeping  with  the  nature  of  our 
political  system.  Without  such  a  system,  one  party  government  could  produce  a 
totalitarian  state.  We  accept  this  fctct  of  life;  so  does  the  opposing  party.  Ac- 
cordingly, do  not  retch  or  quiver  when  we  insist  that  the  preponderant  majority 
■of  our  colleagues — political  appointees — be  members  of  our  own  party. 

Again  it  is  plainly  obvious  that  we  must  be  dedicated  and  devoted  "to  the  con- 
cept that  our  Republican  President  will  be  a  great  President,  that  his  programs 
will  be  successful,  and  that  he  will  be  reelected  to  a  second  term. 

Above  all  other  qualities  of  character  that  we  hold  near  and  dear,  we  must  have 
deep,  abiding,  sincere  loyalty  to  our  President  and  to  our  Secretary. 

Earlier  I  placed  great  emphasis  on  service.  Now  I  want  to  drive  "home  hard  the 
emphasis  on  loyalty.  I  do  not  speak  of  blind,  automatic  loyalty.  I  speak  of  a  sincere, 
an  inteUigent,  a  freely  made  decision  to  join  President  Nixoii  and  Secretary  Finch 
because  we  beheve  in  them,  trust  them,  understand  the  goals  and  objectives  they 
hold,  and  desire  to  support  them  with  the  deepest  sense  of  dedication  and  total 
commitment. 

Should  there  be  anyone  of  you  here  present  today  who  cannot  make  this  com- 
mitment, you  must — in  order  to  maintain  your  own  dignity,  self-respect,  and  in- 
tegrity— examine  deeply  your  own  hearts  and  minds  and  reach  a  decision — to 
serve  or  not  to  serve. 

Do  not  today  understand  me  to  be  saying  that  each  of  you  is  to  consider  your- 
self as  &  fanatic,  blind,  unreasoning,  partisan  Eepublican  of  the  brand  often  carica- 
tured by  Herb  Block  and  others  who  are  determined  that  an  enlightened,  human, 
understanding  Republican  President  shall  not  succeed. 

No.  I  am  saying  that  you  are  here  because  you  have  made  a  profound  commit- 
ment to  support  with  total  dedication  the  President  of  the  United  States;  that 
you  have  made  this  commitment  inteUigently  because  you  wish  to  join  with  him 
\n  bringing  this  country  together  again;  that  you  have  made  this  commitment 
intelligently  because  you  wish  to  join  with  Secretary  Finch  in  assisting  him  to 
perform  the  tough  tasks  which  lie  ahead — tasks  which  must  be  performed  well  in 
order  that  the  President  may  accomplish  his  objective. 

Our  Nation  has  elected  a  Republican  President.  We  have  a  Republican  Ad- 
ministration. We  have  Republican  approaches  to  the  problems  of  our  people.  We 
have  the  knowledge  of  the  President's  goals.  We  have  the  common  sense  to  know 
the  desires  and  objectives  of  the  President  and  the  Secretary — we  must  have  the 
Joyalty,  the  courage,  and  the  commitment  to  do  their  will — not  our  will.  This 
means,  plainly  and  simply,  that  we  get  on  the  track  with  the  President  and  the 
;Secretary  and  that  we  stay  there  and  track  with  them. 

You  may  say,  "I  am  not  political" — "I  am  an  Independent" — "I  do  not  care 
what  party  is  involved,  I  vote  for  the  man" — "Politics  is  a  dirty  business,"  and 
*o  on.  Frorr  the  vantage  point  of  my  ancient  age,  let  me  assure  you  that  no  Ameri- 
can can  afford  to  ignore  politics,  to  ignore  the  machinery  of  government,  to  adopt 
an  attitude  of  "Let  George  do  it."  This  attitude  is  guaranteed  to  ensure  the  de- 
mise of  the  two  party  S3'stem — our  form  of  democracy.  No  American  can  af- 
ford to  avoid  involvement,  particularly  in  today's  world,  when  the  thing  to  do 
is  to  become  involved,  to  participate,  to  take  a  position. 

Now  let's  go  on  to  other  lessons  learned: 

Loyalty  includes  also  a  dedication  to  your  immediate  superior  and  to  those  who 
work  with  you  in  our  cause,  on  our  team. 

Loyalty  includes  an  avoidance  of  criticism  of  our  leaders  and  of  our  colleagues. 
Criticism  which  is  destructive  in  nature  is  cancerous — it  will  destroy  us  and  our 
entire  team.  Snide  remarks  and  facetious  comments  lightly  made  often  come  back 
to  haunt  us.  Too  often  have  I  heard  this  form  of  banter  engaged  in  innocently.  Too 
often  have  I  seen  the  results  published  in  newspapers  or  made  the  subject  of 
remarks  by  the  boob-tube  word  mashers. 

Loyalty  includes  having  the  common  sense  and  decency  to  deal  with  others  in 
a.  manner  calculated  to  bring  credit  to  the  President  and  the  Secretary.  We  are 
the  President's  people — we  are  the  Secretary's  team — -and  when  we  speak,  we 
speak  fnr  the  Secretary  but  we  do  not  speak  as  the  Secretary.  We  do  not  wear  the 
Secretary's  mantle.  Therefore,  while  we  speak  from  strength,  we  do  not  speak  with 
arrogance.  Courtesy  is  the  key.  Our  errors  here  become  the  Secretary's  errors  and 
place  him  in  a  very  delicate  position.  Instead  of  strengthening  him,  we  weaken  him 


201 

Loyalty  includes  the  touching  of  all  required  bases  as  we  set  out  on  our  daily 
rounds  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  Secretary.  We  deal  directly  and  candidly.  We 
deal  with  those  who  ought  to  linow  and  who  have  a  responsibility  to  the  Secretary, 
too.  In  short,  we  do  not  "end  around." 

I  believe  that  I  may  have  placed  the  concept  of  service  and  loyalty  in  the 
proper  perspective  and  I  want  to  go  now  to  a  few  more  pitfalls  and  prattfalls  that 
can  harm  us,  the  President,  and  the  Secretary. 

Not  one  problem  that  we  handle  in  HEW  is  simple.  This  is  the  lot  of  a  Depart- 
ment responsible  for  the  problems  of  people  at  the  national  level.  Accordingly, 
not  one  task  assigned  to  you  is  of  a  nature  such  that  you  can  give  it  the  so-called 
"light  touch."  You  have  to  shred  the  problem;  look  at  it  from  every  angle;  learn 
to  work  in  depth;  learn  to  dig  hard;  learn  to  turn  in  a  work  product  that  is  as 
thorough,  as  logical,  and  as  clear  as  you  can  make  it.  You  should  be  concerned 
with  the  overview,  the  big  policy,  the  grand  decision.  But  you  also  are  in  a  training 
period,  a  development  period — we  all  are.  Do  the  tasks  assigned  well  and  you  will 
find  that  your  personal  job  satisfaction  is  enhanced  and  your  responsibilities  are 
increased.  Above  all  do  not  seek  out  only  the  so-called  "glamour  work;"  put  your 
shoulder  to  the  wheel  and  be  eager  to  tackle  the  "nitty  gritty"  chores,  tot>. 

The  President  and  the  Secretary  appreciate  another  hard  fact  of  life.  Simply 
stated  it  is  that  intelligent  members  of  an  elite  group — our  team-^will  generate 
a  wide  diversity  of  views  and  rather  strong  opinions  regarding  the  highly  charged 
issues  facing  our  Nation  today.  This  is  great  and  we  do  not  want  to  stifle  the 
minds  and  stagnate  the  thought  processes  of  the  members  of  our  team.  At  the 
same  time,  and  although  we  believe  in  and  foster  the  thorough  airing  of  our  views 
and  opinions  within  our  own  family,  we  must  present  a  united  front  in  support  of 
a  decision  once  made  by  the  President  or  the  Secretary.  Our  support  must  be 
total  and  absolute. 

In  conversations  with  others,  we  do  not  refer  to  RHF  as  "  Bob."  He  is  the  Secre- 
tary to  all  within  the  Department  and  to  outsiders.  Be  extremelj'  careful  at  all 
times  to  maintain  the  dignity  of  his  office,  but  do  it  with  warmth  and  humility — 
not  with  arrogance.  We  have  enough  problems  in  HEW  now  without  creating 
more  by  being  inept  or  overbearing. 

Even  though  each  of  us  is  close  to  the  Secretary,  resist  at  all  times  the  tempta- 
tion to  enhance  our  own  image  by  "puffing,"  or  b,y  our  actions  demonstrating  how 
close  we  are  to  the  Secretary'.  We  would  not  be  here  if  we  were  not  close  to  the 
Secretary  and  those  with  whom  we  will  come  in  contact  know  this  political  fact 
of  life.  You  will  demean  yourself  and  the  Office  of  the  Secretary  by  taking  "name 
dropping"  advantage  of  your  position. 

Lobbjnsts — you  will  come  in  contact  with  them;  they  have  a  legitimate  reason 
for  existing.  Be  a  courteous  listener,  but  a  most  careful  talker.  Make  no  com- 
mitments whatsoever  in  the  name  of  the  Secretary.  Moreover,  do  not  even  talk 
in  such  a  manner  to  "lead  on"  a  lobbyist — j'ou  trap  yourself  in  a  very  difficult 
situation  and  you  can  hurt  RHF  badly  by  this  sort  of  conduct.  Again,  be  a 
courteous  and  attentive  listener,  but  a  most  careful  talker. 

Telephone  Conversations— The  telephone  is  obviously  an  invaluable  com- 
munication tool,  but  do  not  say  in  a  telephone  conversation  that  which  you  would 
not  care  to  see  in  print  the  next  day.  Once  again,  the  concept  is  that  of  tact, 
courtesy,  patience,  understanding,  care  and  concern — but  no  commitments  in 
the  name  of  the  Secretary,  and  no  "puffing." 

Mail — The  principles  I  have  spoken  of  thus  far  apply  as  well  to  all  mail  leaving 
the  Department.  When  preparing  correspondence  for  the  Secretary's  signature, 
or  when  reviewing  it,  never  treat  it  lightly,  no  matter  how  simple  the  subject. 
The  reasons  are  obvious — every  letter  portrays  the  image  of  our  office  and  of  the 
Department;  further  every  letter  reflects  the  substance  of  our  positions  and  poli- 
cies. 

Security — Recent  examples  should  be  sufficient  to  impress  upon  each  of  us  the 
critical  importance  of  the  general  security  of  our  office  and  our  official,  as  well  as 
unofficial,  papers.  Every  Department  of  government  is  loaded  with  prying  eyes — • 
eyes  that  are  prying  for  one  reason  or  another.  Be  assured  that  none  of  this  prying 
has  as  its  objective  the  enhancement  of  the  Nixon  Administration  or  the  enhance- 
ment of  our  Department.  We  deal  with  critical  issues  of  great  importance  to  manv 
diverse  groups  in  our  land.  Be  mindful  of  security  at  all  times;  above  all  leave  a 
clean  desk  when  you  leave  for  the  day  and  be  certain  that  critical  papers  are 
under  lock. 


202 

The  effective  fvinctioning  of  any  group  is  related  to  the  degree  of  cohesiveness 
and  common  purpose  which  has  been  established  and  accepted  throughout  the 
grf)up. 

Let's  look  to  see  if  we  have  the  ingredients  in  our  make-up  to  generate  that  sense 
ofrcohesiveness  and  common  purpose. 

Why  are  we  here? 

A.  Because  we  believe  in  President  Nixon  and  Secretary  Finch. 

B.  Because  we  are  dedicated  to  them  and  their  work. 
C  Because  we  ask  only  to  serve;  not  to  be  served. 

D.  Because  we  have  no  greed  for  personal  aggrandizement. 

E.  Because  we  feel  a  deep  sense  of  personal  pride,  honor  and  humility  in 
being  asked  to  serve. 

How  do  we  operate? 

First,  we  will  operate  as  the  Secretary  desires  us  to  operate. 
Second,  our  mission  is  to  do  just  as  much  for  the  Secretary  as  we  can  to 
remove  from  his  shoulders  vninecessary  burdens. 

Third,  we  do  our  work  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines  laid  down  by  the 
Secretary. 

Fourth,  we  are  staff  assistants  to  the  Secretary — not  decision  makers  or 
policy  makers,  even  though  we  may  well  iiave  a  strong  input  to  him  prior 
to  the  moment  decisions  are  made  and  policies  established.  Once  made,  we 
support  them  to  the  hilt! 

Fifth,  we  operate  in  such  a  way  as  to  reflect  credit  upon  the  Secretary  for 
choosing  us  to  occupy  the  important  positions  to  which  he  has  appointed  each 
of  us. 

Sixth,  we  do  niit  throw  around  the  weight  of  the  Secretary's  Office.  We  are 
•courteous  and  considerate  in  all  of  our  dealings  with  the  people  in  the  Depart- 
ment, yet  we  are  not  to  be  hoodwinked  or  misled  into  presenting  slanted 
information  to  the  Secretary. 
I  believe  that  each  of  us  can  agree  that  we  have  the  ingredients  required  to 
function  effectively  in  behalf  of  the  President  and  the  Secretary. 

Our  objective — -to  assist  to  the  fullest  extent,  the  Secretary  in  his  objective  to 
make  this  the  best  Department  in  the  Nixon  Administration;  to  establish  this 
Department  as  a  Department  on  the  move,  a  Department  composed  of  com- 
passionate and  understanding  people  who  are  determined  to  generate  and  manage 
plans  and  programs  designed  to  enrich  the  lives  of  all  Americans;  to  make  this 
Department  so  attractive  and  so  meaningful  in  its  work,  that  menibers  of  the 
civil  service,  and  others  not  now  in  government,  will  be  eager  to  join  HEW  and 
assist  the  Secretary  to  achieve  his  objectives.  Imaginative,  creative,  dedicated, 
and  competent  people  form  the  heart  and  fiesh,  the  bone,  sinew  and  muscle  of  any 
organization  whether  it  be  the  corner  grocery  store,  or  a  major  Department  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States.  We  must  have  them  and  we  must  work 
with  them  in  such  a  manner  that  they  can  realize  their  full  potential  in  the  best 
interests  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

[Time  maera'/inp,  .Tnnimrv  In,  1973] 

The  Administration 

"tattletale  gray" 

The  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  likes  to  present  itself  to  the  i)ubiic  as  a 
well-oiled  crime-fighting  monolith  that  functions  without  so  much  as  a  ping.  If 
that  image  was  never  entirely  accurate  in  J.  Edgar  Hoover's  day,  it  is  even  less 
true  now  under  the  bureau's  acting  director,  L.  Patrick  Gray,  .56.  More  and  niore 
the  bureau's  internecine  troubles  have  been  surfacing — mainly  because  Gray's 
own  agents  are  privately  protesting  his  policies.  The  most  recent  and  glaring 
example:  Gray's  reshuffling  of  nine  veteran  members  of  his  headquarters  staff, 
which,  among  Other  things,  wiped  out  the  bureau's  longstanding  Crime  Records 
Division.  For  years  it  was  an  elite  outfit  that  served  Hoover  as  a  liaison  with 
Congress  and  the  press. 

Gray  insists  that  the  men  are  being  given  jobs  that  are  every  bit  as  important 
as  their  previous  ones,  and  that  several  of  the  assignments  are  promotions.  How- 
ever, at  least  two  of  the  men  chose  to  resign.  Gray  claims  that  he  is  getting  rid 
of  "Hooverites,"  yet  some  agents  accuse  him  of  retaining  the  most  hated  of 
Hoover's  hard-line  policies. 


203 

Among  these  policies  are  the  harsh  discipUnary  measures  that  agents  consider 
mijust;  the  persistence  of  power  cUques  that  virtually  run  the  bureau;  the  i^erpet- 
uation  of  Hoover's  notorious  "blacklist"  of  people  to  be  shunned,  socially  and 
otherwise,  by  FBI  agents;  the  maintenance  of  so-called  penal  coloniesj  field 
offices  to  which  agents  in  disfavor  are  banished;  and  leaking  FBI  information  to 
embarrass  officials  Gray  considers  to  be  his  enemies. 

Still,  nothing  has  damaged  morale  at  the  bureau  as  much  as  one  of  Gray's 
own  innovations — the  publicizing  of  his  disciplinary  actions.  He  terms  it  "airing 
the  linen,"  but  around  the  Vjureau  these  days  the  practice  has  earned  him  the 
nickname   "Tattletale   Gray." 

Intelligence. — Most  of  those  sound  like  basic  housecleaning  problems  that  in- 
evitably crop  up  when  an  organization  of  the  size  and  complexity  of  the  FBI 
loses  the  only  chief  it  ever  had.  But  the  nagging  problem  that  will  not  go  awa.y  is 
Gray's  tie  with  President  Nixon.  Whatever  Hoover's  flaws,  no  one  coiild  accuse  him 
of  playing  partisan  politics;  he  intended  the  bureau  to  be  above  such  doings  and 
made  that  ideal  stick  during  his  reign. 

Gray  left  the  Navy  in  1960  to  join  the  staff  of  Vice  President  Richard  Nixon, 
and  served  on  the  Nixon  campaign  teams  in  1960  and  1968.  There  have  been  dis- 
turbing indications  that  Gray  is  not  the  wholly  apolitical  administrator  that  he 
now  claims  to  be.  Back  in  1969,  when  he  joined  the  Health,  Education  and  Welfare 
Department,  he  told  a  meeting  of  Administration  appointee.s,  "Do  not  retch  or 
quiver  when  we  insist  that  the  preponderant  majority  ;of  our  colleagues — po- 
litical appointees — be  members  of  our  own  y)arty."  He  adried:  "Loyalty  includes 
an  avoidance  of  criticism  of  our  leaders  and  of  our  colleagues.  Criticism  which  is  de- 
structive in  nature  is  cancerous — it  will  destroy  us  and  our  entire  team." 

Gray  coached  Richard  Kleindienst  in  his  testimony  before  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee  during  the  I.T.T.  controversy,  and  last  summer,  at  the  request  of  the 
White  House,  made  campaign  speeches  for  Nixon.  He  began  his  talks  in  Ohio 
after  a  presidential  aide  told  him  that  the  state  was  "crucially  vital  to  our  hopes  in 
November."  In  September  he  ordered  his  agents  to  collect  political  intelligence  for 
Nixon,  and  within  the  bureau,  defended  his  actions  by  simply  shrugging: 
"Wouldn't  you  do  that  for  the  President?"  Although  the  request  came  from  a 
member  of  Nixon's  staff,  the  White  House  said  later  that  it  was  improper  to  give 
the  assignment  to  the  FBI. 

An  even  pricklier  matter  is  the  ongoing  Watergate  bugging  case  and  the  White 
House  anger  about  news  leaks.  Several  agents  complained  that  Gray's  spot  in- 
spection of  the  Washington  field  office  in  search  of  the  leaks  was  actually  slowing 
down  the  W"atergate  investigation.  Recently  Gray  transferred  three  FBI  officials 
who  pushed  the  Watergate  investigation  into  the  White  House  and  presidential 
re-election  committee.  Two  accepted  the  transfers.  The  third  quit  the  bureau. 
Said  one  Washington  agent:  "I've  been  around  here  a  long  time,  and  no  one  has 
ever  questioned  my  integrity.  Now,  because  the  White  House  is  upset,  my  in- 
tegrity has  been  challenged  tv/ice  in  one  week." 

Gray  did  relax  Hoover's  mandatory  weight  limits — then  turned  around  and 
disciplined  an  agent  for  disobeying  an  order  to  lose  weight.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  refused  to  censure  an  agent  whose  son  had  been  involved  in  a  drug  scandal  or  to 
discipline  an  agent  for  delinquent  reports  on  some  72  cases  to  which  he  was 
assigned.  Said  Gray  sensibly:  "I  might  have  some  overdue  reports  if  I  was  han- 
dling 72  cases."  He  has  also  reduced  some  padded  conviction  statistics  Hoover 
used  to  cite  to  make  the  bureau  look  good — although  a  drunken  Indian  arrested 
on  a  reservation  may  still  end  up  in  the  FBI's  crime  figures. 

Thus  far,  Nixon  himself  has  had  nothing  but  praise  for  Gray,  but  it  remains  to 
be  seen  whether  the  President  will  permanently  give  Gray  the  coveted  chair. 

January  10,   1973. 
[memorandum] 

Subject:  Time  Magazine  Article  of  January  15,  1973  Entitled  "Tattle- 
tale  Gray 

The  above  article  includes  a  number  of  false,  inaccurate,  or  misleading  state- 
ments. I  will  deal  with  each  one  of  them  individually  below. 

1.  "Gray's  own  agents  are  privately  protesting  his  policies" 

On  December  19,  1972,  I  asked  Acting  Associate  Director  W.  Mark  Felt  to 
conduct  a  survey  of  morale  among  the  agents  throughout  the  Bureau.  Mr.  Felt 


204 

and  Assistant  Director  Leonard  W.  Walters  contacted  the  heads  of  21  field 
offices.  The  results  were  that  morale  among  the  agents  is  at  least  as  high  as 
ever  or  at  most  higher  than  ever  in  the  history  of  the  Bureau.  Some  sample 
comments  follow: 

"Outstanding,  never  higher;  exuberance  expressed  with  frequency  bv  Agents 
at  innovative  changes;  deep  impression  of  Mr.  Gray  as  a  leader  upon  "his  visit; 
Agents  working  freely  on  weekend  urgent  assignments  with  no  grumbling;  99% 
of  Agents  highly  disposed  toward  innovative  changes  made  by  Mr.  Gray;  in- 
dividual production  and  accomplishments  high  which  is  proof  of  the  pudding; 
Agents  giving  of  their  own  time  with  gusto;  great  teamwork  among  Agents 
demonstrating  high  morale;  Agents  and  clerical  personnel  alike  glowing  with 
comments  concerning  impression  of  Mr.  Gray  and  his  leadership;  never  observed 
morale  higher  among  Agents;  morale  100%;  high  impression  of  Mr.  Gray's 
acceptance  of  responsibility  for  a  correct  law  enforcement  decision  in  aborting 
skyjacked  flight  at  Orlando,  Florida  (same  expression  by  local  police  officials) ; 
morale  never  higher  not  only  among  rank  and  file  Agent  personnel  but  super- 
visory staff  as  well;  unanimous  support  of  innovative  changes  of  Mr.  Gray; 
terrific  impact  of  Mr.  Gray's  visit  and  changes  wrought;  best  morale  ever  ob- 
served in  any  office;  high  morale  throughout  field." 

2.  "Gray's  reshuffling  of  nine  veteran  members  of  his  headquarters  staff  .  .  .  wiped 
out  the  bureau's  longstanding  Crime  Records  Division" 

On  December  1,  1972,  I  announced  that  I  had  transferred  to  mv  immediate 
office  responsibility  for  relations  with  Congress  and  the  news  media.  In  addition, 
I  announced  that  I  had  requested  a  management  survey  of  the  remaining  func- 
tions of  the  Crime  Research  Division.  That  survey  was  completed  on  December  6 
and  recommended  transferring  all  remaining  functions  of  the  Division  to  several 
other  divisions.  This  was  approved  by  me  on  December  12  and  effected  by  Decem- 
ber 19.  Therefore,  the  Crime  Research  Division  had  been  abolished  by  that  date 
and  its  i^ersonnel  were  reporting  to  their  new  supervisors  in  other  divisions. 

The  nine  transfers  referred  to  were  issued  December  29,  1972,  and  could  not 
have  wiped  out  a  then  non-existent  Crime  Research  Division.  Eight  of  them 
involved  members  of  the  FBI  who  had  been  assigned  previously  to  the  Crime 
Research  Division  but  were  now  functioning  in  their  new  divisions.  The  ninth 
involved  an  official  of  the  General  Investigative  Division.  Listed  below  are  the 
transfers,  none  of  which  involved  any  change  in  rank  or  salary,  but  all  of  which 
involved  substantially  greater  responsibility  and  less  supervision  in  the  perform- 
ance of  the  new  duties. 


Name  Old  assignment  New  assignment  Disposition 


James  F  Bland Director's  office, SAC,  Albany  Retired 

Harold  P.  Leinbaugh.. do ASAC,  Detroit-  Do 

Donald  G.  Manning Training  division ASAC,  Pliiladelphia  Do 

George  W.  Gunn do ASAC,  San  Francisco.-.  Pending 

William  H.  Stapleton.- Administrative  division ASAC,  Chicago Retired. 

George  T.  Quinn Training  division Inspector .      Accepted. 

Gordon  E.  Mahnfeldt Associate  director's  office .__ ...do Do 

Bernard  M.  Suttler Training  division  (Washington,  D.C.)...  National  Academy "(QuanTico)."..".."  Retired! 

Henry  A.  Schutz,  Jr General  investigative  division Inspector Accepted. 


3.  "Gray  claims  that  he  is  getting  rid  of  'Hooverites'  " 

I  have  never  stated  or  claimed  that  I  am  getting  rid  of  Hooverites.  In  fact,  I 
have  specifically  stated  and  been  quoted  in  the  press  to  the  contrary.  (Washington 
Star-News,  January  3,  1973,  p.  A  17) 

4.  Gray  has  retained  the  most  hated  of  Hoover's  hardline  policies : 

(a)  "harsh  disciplinary  measures" 

I  have  disciplined  members  of  the  FBI  when  appropriate  and  only  to  a 
degree  commensurate  with  the  severity  of  their  misconduct. 

(b)  "the  persistence  of  power  cliques  that  virtually  run  the  bureau" 

All  authority  in  the  Bureau  reposes  in  the  Acting  Director.  Certain  author- 
ity is  delegated  by  him  to  the  Associate  Director,  the  Assistant  Directors  in 
charge  of  the  various  headquarters  divisions,  and  the  Special  Agents  in  Charge 
of  the  field  divisions.  Perhaps  it  may  be  true  that  "power  cliques"  may  have 
controlled  the  selection  of  personnel  for  advancement  in  the  FBI  in  the  past, 
•  but  this  is  no  longer  true.  Selection  Boards  composed  of  Assistant  Directors 


205 

and  SACs  now  review  records  of  FBI  personnel  and  recommend  to  the  Acting 
Director  those  best  quaUfied  for  advancement. 

(c)  "the  perpetuation  of  Hoover's  notorious  'blacli-list'  of  people  to  be  shunned, 
socially  and  otherwise  by  FBI  agents" 

I  know  of  no  such  list  or  of  the  perpetuation  of  it. 

(d)  "the  maintenance  of  so-called  penal  colonies,  field  offices  to  which  agents  in 
disfavor  are  banished" 

I  have  never  heard  of  nor  used  the  term  "penal  colonies"  with  reference  to 
the  field  offices.  When  circumstances  warranted,  I  have  transferred  Special 
Agents  in  Charge  from  larger  to  smaller  field  offices  to  reduce  their  supervisory 
responsibilities  and  thus  given  them  a  chance  to  improve  their  own  cap- 
abilities. 

(e)  "leaking  FBI  information  to  embarrass  officials  Gray  considers  to  be  his 
enemies" 

I  have  not  and  do  not  leak  information  to  the  press.  In  all  my  contacts 
with  the  news  media,  I  have  done  all  I  could  to  deal  openly  and  fairly  with 
them  at  all  times. 
(/)  publicizing  of  disciplinary  actions — "He  terms  it  'airing  the  linen'  " 

I  have  never  used  the  term  "airing  the  linen"  with  refei'ence  to  any  dis- 
ciplinary action.  Furthermore,  I  have  never  publicized  a  disciplinary  action. 
I  did  give  a  full  and  complete  statement  on  announcing  the  retirement  of 
Wesley  G.  Grapp,  the  former  SAC  in  Los  Angeles.  However,  this  was  done 
solely  to  protect  the  Bureau  and  give  all  the  facts  to  counter  false  reports  and 
rumors  that  this  was  the  first  case  of  scandal  or  corruption  in  the  Bureau. 

5.  "Gray  .    .    .    served  on  the  Nixon  campaign  teams  in  1960  and  1968." 

I  served  in  the  Office  of  the  then  Vice  President  Nixon  from  about  July  1,  1960 
to  January  1961.  I  did  not  serve  in  the  campaign  organization  of  the  President 
during  1968. 

6.  Gray  "told  a  meeting  of  Administration  appointees,  'Do  not  retch  or  quiver 

when  we  insist  that  the  preponderant  majority  of  our  colleagues — political 
appointees — -be  members  of  our  own  party."  He  added:  "Loyalty  includes  an 
avoidance  of  criticism  of  (jur  leaders  and  of  our  colleagues.  Criticism  which 
is  destructive  in  nature  is  cancerous — it  will  destroy  us  and  our  entire 
team." 

These  quotations  are  extracted  from  a  talk  I  gave  to  all  political  appointees  at 
HEW  on  July  25,  1969.  They  are,  of  course,  taken  out  of  context.  The  full  context 
is  as  follows:  "Appreciate  the  fact  that  every  single  member  of  the  opposite 
political  party  is  working  hard  day  and  night  to  ensure  that  the  President  of  the 
L^nited  States  is  hampered  and  harassed  in  carrying  out  his  programs  and  that 
the  President  of  the  United  States  is  not  re-elected  to  serve  a  second  term." 

"This  is  a  real  hard  political  fact  of  life  This  is  in  keeping  with  the  nature  of  ov.r 
political  system.  Without  such  a  system,  one  party  government  co  ild  j  roduce  a 
totalitarian  state.  We  accept  this  fact  of  life;  so  does  the  opposing  party.  Accord- 
ingly, do  not  retch  or  quiver  when  we  insist  that  the  preponderant  majori.y  of  our 
colleagues — political  appointees — be  members  of  our  own  party." 

Later  in  the  same  speech,  !_ stated: 

"Loyalty  includes  also  a  dedication  to  your  immediate  superior  and  to  those  who 
work  with  you  in  our  cause,  on  our  team." 

''Loyalty  includes  an  avoidance  of  criticism  of  our  leaders  and  of  our  colleagues. 
Criticism  which  is  destructive  in  nature  is  cancerous — it  will  destroy  us  and  our 
entire  team.   .   .   ." 

"The  President  and  the  Secretary  appreciate  another  hard  fact  of  life.  Simply 
stated  it  is  that  intelligent  members  of  an  elite  group — our  team — will  generate  a 
wide  diversity  of  views  and  rather  strong  opinions  regarding  the  highly  charged 
issues  facing  our  Nation  today.  This  is  great  and  we  do  not  want  to  stifle  the 
minds  and  stagnate  the  thought  processes  of  the  members  of  our  team.  At  the 
same  time,  and  although  we  believe  in  and  foster  the  thorough  airing  of  our  views 
and  opinions  within  our  own  family,  we  must  present  a  united  front  in  support 
of  a  decision  once  made  by  the  President  or  the  Secretary.  Our  support  must  be 
total  and  absolute." 

7.  "Gray  coached  Richard  Kleindienst  in  his  testimony  before  the  Senate  Judici- 

ary Committee  during  the  I.T.T.  controversy" 

As  Deputy  Attorney  General-Designate,  I  assisted  the  Attorney  General  in 
preparing  for  his  confirmation  hearings  before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee. 

91-331 — 73 14 


206 

~No  one  coached  Mr.  Kleindienst  to  my  knowledge.  Also  in  that  capacity,  I  later 
acted  upon  official  requests  and  inquiries  from  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee. 

8.  "Gray  .  .  .  made  campaign  speeches  for  Nixon.  He  began  his  talks  in  Ohio 

after  a  presidential  aide  told  him  that  the  state  was  'crucially  vital  to  our 
hopes  in  November'  " 

I  gave  no  campaign  speeches  whatever  for  the  President.  I  spoke  before  the 
City  Club  of  Cleveland,  Ohio  on  August  11,  1972,  on  the  subject  of  "Freedom 
Under  Law",  at  the  invitation  of  the  City  Club.  I  made  no  mention  whatever  of 
the  President,  his  opponent,  or  the  political  canqjaign.  The  speech  dealt  mainly 
with  the  problem  of  crime  in  a  constitutional  democracy.  That  was  the  only  speech 
I  have  given  in  the  State  of  Ohio  since  being  named  Acting  Director.  It  is  true 
that  I  did  receive  a  White  House  memorandum  regarding  this  speech.  A  copj-  is 
attached. 

9.  "In  September,  he  ordered  his  agents  to  collect  political  intelligence  for  Nixon, 

and,  within  the  bureau,  defended  his  actions  by  simplj'  shrugging:  'Wouldn't 
you  do  that  for  the  President?'  " 

I  have  never  made  any  such  statement,  within  the  Bureau  or  anywhere  else. 
I  have  made  no  public  comment  whatever  on  this  matter. 

Under  date  of  September  1,  1972,  Geoff  Shepard  of  the  White  House  staff, 
prepared  a  memorandum  for  the  l^eputy  Attorney  General  on  the  subject  of 
"Information  for  ('ampaign  Trips:  Events  and  Issues."  This  requested  two 
categories  of  information:  (1)  identification  of  the  substantive  issue  problem  areas 
in  the  criminal  justice  field;  and  (2)  a  list  of  events  relating  to  the  criminal  justice 
area  that  would  be  good  for  John  Ehrlichman  to  ct)nsider  doing.  The  memoiandum 
indicated  an  interest  in  this  information  in  l.o  specified  states.  It  requested  the 
information  b}'  close  of  business  on  September  7,  1972. 

Under  date  of  September  8,  1972,  the  office  of  the  Deputy  Attorney  General 
forwarded  to  the  off.ce  of  the  Acting  Director  a  copy  of  the  White  House  memo- 
randum requesting  an  evaluation  of  the  questions.  This  noted  that  the  White 
House  deadline  already  was  passed  and  asked  for  a  response  as  quickly  as  possible. 
The  memorandum  from  the  office  of  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  was  processed 
by  a  member  of  his  staff,  not  by  the  Depiity  Attorney  General. 

The  memorandum  from  the  office  of  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  was  received 
in  the  office  of  the  Acting  Director  of  the  FBI  at  10:32  a.m.  cm  September  8,  1972. 
Mr.  Gray  was  out  of  Washington  at  the  time  and  the  matter  was  handled  bv 
his  Executive  Assistant,  David  D.  Kinley.  He  forwarded  it  to  the  Assistant 
Director  t)f  the  Crime  Records  Division,  Thomas  E.  Bishop.  Mr.  Bishop  discussed 
the  matter  with  Acting  Associate  Director  W.  Mark  Felt,  and  thereafter  Mr. 
Bishop  had  one  of  his  subordinates  prepare  a  teletype  to  21  FBI  Field  Offices 
which  he  approved  to  be  sent  late  on  September  8,  1972,  setting  a  deadline  of 
the  opening  of  business  on  September  11,  1972.  This  teletype  set  out  virtually 
verbatim  the  text  of  the  request  in  the  White  House  memorandum  of  Septem- 
ber 1,  1972. 

The  material  received  from  the  Field  Offices  in  response  to  the  teletj-pe  was 
summarized  into  a  memorandum  on  September  11,  1972,  which  was  approved 
by  Messrs.  Bishop,  Felt  and  Kinley  and  was  then  delivered  to  the  office  of  the 
Deputy  Attorney  General  late  on  the  same  date.  The  information  supplied  by 
the  Field  Offices  required  no  investigation  to  obtain  it — it  was  information  readily 
available  within  the  Field  Offices  pertaining  to  forthcoming  meetings  and  con- 
ferences on  matters  of  similar  interest  in  law  enforcement  and  criminal  justice 
fields. 

Mr.  Gray  was  out  of  Washington  during  the  entire  period  of  September  8  to  11, 
1972,  returning  to  the  city  after  7:00  p.m.  on  September  11,  1972.  His  first  knowl- 
edge of  this  matter  was  on  the  late  afternoon  of  September  12,  1972. 

Personnel  involved  in  the  handling  of  this  project  have  stated  they  did  not 
question  the  propriety  m  complying  with  the  request  since  it  dealt  with  informa- 
tion of  a  broad  nature  concerning  police  and  the  criminal  justice  system,  since  it 
had  been  requested  by  the  White  House,  and  since  the  request  had  come  through 
^he  offices  of  the  Deputj'  Attorney  General  and  the  Acting  Director. 


207 

10.  "Gray's  spot  inspection  of  the  Washington  field  office  in  search  of  the  leaks 

was  actually  slowing  down  the  Watergate  investigation." 

I  have  ordered  no  spot  inspection  of  the  Washington  Field  Office  to  determine 
the  source  of  leaks  in  the  Watergate  case.  I  have  heard  no  complaints  whatever 
that  tlie  Watergate  investigation  was  slowed  down  b\-  me. 

11.  "R.ecently,   Gray  transferred  three  FBI  officials  who  pushed  the  Watergate 

investigation  into  the  White  House  and  presidential  re-election  committee. 
Two  accepted  the  transfers.  The  third  quit  the  bureau." 

I  have  transferred  two  members  of  the  FBI  involved  in  the  Watergate  investi- 
gation. On  September  29,  1972,  at  his  own  request,  I  re-assigned  the  Assistant 
Director  in  charge  of  the  General  Investigative  Division  to  his  former  position  as 
Special  Agent  in  Charge  of  the  San  Francisco  Field  Office.  Also,  on  September  29, 
1972,  I  re-assigned  the  Special  Agent  in  Charge  of  the  Washington  Field  Office  to 
head  the  St.  Louis  Field  Office  because  he  allowed  certain  false  and  misleading 
information  to  be  reported  to  FBI  headquarters  concerning  an  incident  during  an 
anti-war  demonstration  in  May  1972. 

The  third  individual  was  never  offered  a  transfer.  He  headed  the  Accounting 
and  Fraud  Section  of  the  General  Investigative  Division.  I  had  no  intention  of 
reassigning  him  because  of  his  demonstrated  expertise  in  this  held.  However,  on 
December  6,  1972,  he  resigned  voluntarily  to  take  an  investigative  position  v/ith 
HUD. 

12.  "[Gray]  refused  to  censure  an  agent  whose  son  had  been  involved  in  a  drug 

scandal" 
The  case  referred  to  must  V^e  that  of  Special  Agent  Francis  E.  Burke.  On 
March  14,  1972,  he  was  censured,  placed  on  probation,  and  reassigned  from  the 
Coeur  d'Alene,  Idaho,  Re-^ident  Agency  to  the  Milwaukee  office.  This  action  was 
taken  by  Mr.  Hoover  becatise  Burke  failed  to  report  to  the  Bureau  allegations 
jiiade  to  the  Coeur  d'Alene  Police  Department  that  his  son  was  dealing  with 
narcotics  and  stolen  goods.  Investigation  by  the  local  Police  Department  pro- 
duced no  concrete  evidence  in  support  of  these  allegations.  On  May  25,  1972, 
Burke  wrote  me  requesting  reassignment  from  Milwaukee  to  Coeur  d'Alene 
because  of  the  poor  health  of  his  wife  and  the  fact  that  his  mother  was  widowed. 
On  June  15,  1972,  I  transferred  Burke  to  the  Butte  office.  At  the  time,  I  com- 
mented to  my  associates  at  the  Bureati  as  follows:  "(1)  Are  we  surmising  that  his 
al^ility  to  function  effectively  has  been  impaired,  or  do  we  have  concrete  evidence 
that  it  has  been  impaired?  I  find  none.  (2)  No  father  is  always  certain  from  one 
day  to  the  next  of  the  behavior  of  his  children.  Is  it  a  positive  requirement  that 
every  SA  be  able  to  maintain  discipline  in  his  home  and  that  he  do  so?  Some 
fathers  can,  some  cannot,  and  often  due  to  no  fault  of  their  own,  particularly  in 
today's  clime.  (3)  Agents  have  had  family  problems,  and  I  am  sure  will  have  them 
in  the  ftiture.  Transfer  away  from  family  does  not  help  solve  such  problems. 
(4)  I  am  analyzing  tiiis  case  with  the  interests  of  the  FBI  paramount,  but  with 
consideration  for  the  human  factijrs.  (5)  vSA  Burke  has  been  rated  Excellent  since 
1961.  (6)  Order  SA  Burke  to  Butte,  the  Headquarters  city,  unless  we  have  to  set 
up  a  chain  of  transfers  to  fill  a  vacancy  in  Milwaukee  and  thus  penalize  other 
Agents.  Let  me  know.  (7)  These  transfers  for  reasons  foiuid  here  are  abominable." 

13.  Gray  refused  "to  discipline  an  agent  for  delinquent  reports  on  some  72  cases 

to  which  he  was  assigned.  Said  Gray  sensibly:  'I  might  have  some  overdue 
reports  if  I  was  handling  72  cases'  " 

I  do  not  recall  ever  making  such  a  statement.  Officials  responsible  for  these 
matters  cannot  recall  such  a  statement,  nor  do  they  have  any  idea  what  case  is 
being  referred  to. 
Attachment. 

The  White  House, 
Washington,  June  13,  1972. 
Memorandimi  for:  Hon.  L.  Patrick  Gray. 
From:  Patrick  E.  O'Donnell. 
Subject:  Freedom's  Fortim — The  City  Club,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

The  City  Club  has  asked  our  assistance  in  attempting  to  secure  j'our  participa- 
tion as  a  key  speaker  sometime  during  the  period  following  July  1,  1972.  Since  its 
founding  fifty  years  ago,  Cleveland's  City  Club  has  been  a  focus  and  one  of  the 
bulwarks  of  freedom  of  speech  in  one  of  America's  great  cities.  The  Club  maintains 
a  deep  interest  in  affairs  of  government,  economics  and  politics,  both  national 


208 

and  international.  It  offers  a  prestigious  meeting  place  for  the  open  discussion  of 
important  social,  political  and  economic  problems. 

They  meet  every  Friday  at  noon  and  have  a  300  maximum  attendance.  However, 
if  you  were  inclined,  they  could  "go  public"  and  provide  almost  a  crowd  of  any 
size  you  might  desire.  Both  Secretaries  Hodgson  and  Shultz  have  recently  ad- 
dressed the  Club  and  just  recently  Ambassador  Bush  delivered  a  well-received 
speech. 

With  Ohio  being  cruciaUy  vital  to  our  hopes  in  November,  we  would  hope  you  will 
assign  this  forum  sorne  priority  in  planning  your  schedule.  In  the  event  you  are 
interested,  I  have  full  background  material  available.  Incidentally,  Under  Secre- 
tary of  Commerce  Jim  Lynn  is  quite  familiar  with  the  Club. 

Many  thanks. 

Mr.  Gray.  It  was  not  a  press  release,  though,  Senator,  I  didn't 
make  a  press  release.  I  wrote  a  memorandum. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  see. 

Mr.  Gray.  And  I  gave  it  to  certain — I  gave  it  rather  wide  distribu- 
tion. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Yoiu-  memorandum  says  that  the  Time  quota- 
tions "are,  of  course,  taken  out  of  context.  The  full  text  is  as  follows. " 
Then  your  memorandum  goes  on  to  say — do  you  want  to  read  that 
yourself  or  do  you  want  me  to? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  prefer  that  you  read  it,  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  would  prefer  that  you  would,  but  that  is  all 
right. 

Mr.  Gray.  Your  voice  may  be  stronger  than  mine  at  this  moment 
and  that  is  why  I  am 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  do  very  well. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  have  a  little  trouble  with  my  Sucrets.  [Laughter.] 

Senator  Kennedy.  As  follows: 

Appreciate  the  fact  that  every  single  member  of  the  opposite  political  part.y  is 
working  hard  da,y  and  night  to  insure  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  is 
hampered  and  harassed  in  carrying  out  his  program  and  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States  is  not  reelected  to  serve  a  second  term. 

This  is  a  real  hard  political  fact  of  life.  This  is  in  keeping  with  the  nature  of  our 
political  sj^stem.  Without  such  a  sj^stem  one-party  government  could  produce  a 
totalitarian  state.  We  accept  this  fact  of  life,  so  does  the  opijosing  party.  Accord- 
ingly, do  not  retch  or  quiver  when  we  insist  that  the  preponderant  majority  of 
our  colleagues,  political  appointees,  be  members  of  our  own  party. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Now  this  is  where  your  memorandum  stops 
quoting,  but  the  speech  itself  continues,  and  I  would  like  to  read 
briefly  since  the  part  I  have  read  preceded  the  language  that  was 
quoted  by  Time,  and  the  part  that  follows  the  Time  quote  is  not 
included  in  the  release: 

Again  it  is  plainly  obvious  that  we  must  be  dedicated  and  devoted  to  th& 
concept  that  our  Republican  President  will  be  a  great  President,  that  his  programs 
will  be  successful,  and  that  he  will  be  reelected  to  a  second  term. 

Above  all  other  qualities  of  character  that  we  hold  near  and  dear,  we  must 
have  deep,  abiding,  sincere  loyalty  to  our  President  and  to  our  Secretar.v. 

Earlier  I  placed  great  emphasis  on  service.  Now  I  want  to  drive  home  hard  the 
emphasis  on  loyalty.  I  do  not  speak  of  blind,  automatic  loyalty.  I  speak  of  a 
sincere,  an  intelligent,  a  freely  made  decision  to  join  President  Nixon  and  Secretary 
Finch  because  we  believe  in  them,  trust  them,  luiderstand  the  goals  and  objectives 
the}'  hold,  and  desire  to  support  them  with  the  deepest  sense  of  dedication  and 
total  commitment. 

Should  there  be  any  one  of  yon  here  present  today  who  cannot  make  thi.s 
roTimitme'^t  vou  must  in  order  to  maintain  your  own  dignity,  self-respect  ar.d 
integrity,  examine  deeply  j'^our  own  hearts  and  minds  and  reach  a  decision  to 
sci  \  c  or  not  to  serve. 


209 

Do  not  today  understand  me  to  say  that  each  of  you  is  to  consider  himself  as  a 
fanatic,  blind,  unreasoning  partisan  kind  of  Republican,  the  brand  often  cari- 
catured by  Herblock  and  others  who  are  determined  that  an  enlightened,  human, 
understanding  Repubhcan  President  shall  not  succeed. 

No,  I  am  saying  you  are  here  because  you  hav^e  made  a  profound  commitment 
to  support  the  total  dedication  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  that 
you  have  made  this  commitment  inteUigently  because  you  wish  to  join  with  him  in 
bringing  this  country  together  again  and  you  made  this  commitment  intelligently 
because  you  wished  to  join  with  Secretary  Finch  in  assisting  him  to  perform  the 
tough  tasks  which  lie  ahead,  tasks  which  must  be  performed  well  in  order  that  the 
President  may  push  his  objective. 

Our  nation  has  elected  a  Republican  President,  we  have  a  Republican  Ad- 
ministration, we  have  Republican  approaches  to  prol:)lems  of  our  people.  We 
have  the  President's  goals,  we  have  the  common  sense  to  know  and  acknowledge 
the  common  objectives  of  the  President  and  Secretary,  and  we  should  have  the 
loyalty,  the  courage  and  commitment  to  do  their  will — not  our  will.  This  means, 
plainly  and  simply,  that  we  get  on  the  track  with  the  President  and  the  Secretary 
and  that  we  stay  there  and  track  with  them. 

Now  an  earlier  paragraph,  on  page  2  of  your  speech,  at  the  top  you 
have : 

Each  one  of  us  is  here  in  HEW  because  Richard  Nixon  was  elected  to  the  high 
office  of  President  of  the  United  States.  Further  we  are  here  because  Secretary 
Finch  has  seen  fit  to  place  trust  and  confidence  in  us  and  to  approve  our  selection 
to  fill  a  position  in  HEW. 

In  short,  we  owe  our  positions  to  the  capability  of  the  President  to  come  off  the 
the  mat,  so  to  speak,  and  drive  through  hard,  vigorous  years  of  campaigning.  .  .  . 

The  part  that  "Each  one  of  us  here  in  HEW",  if  you  could  change 
that  to  FBI,  "because  Richard  Nixon  was  elected  to  the  high  office  of 
President  of  the  United  States."  Is  this  still  your  feehng? 

Mr.  Gray.  Certainly  not,  and  I  expressed  that  in  my  statement  to 
the  committee.  Remember  this  statement,  Senator  Kennedy,  was 
made  to  pohtical  appointees  at  HEW  at  the  Deputy  Assistant  Secre- 
tary level  and  below.  I  would  invite  your  attention  to  the  pledges  I 
made  in  my  statement  to  the  committee  and  I  \\ould  also  saj^  to  you 
again,  as  I  said  in  my  statement,  that  I  view  my  return  to  the  FBI  as 
a  return  to  the  service  of  my  coimtry,  as  distinguished  from  my  former 
pursuit  while  I  was  helping  Bob  Finch  make  the  transition  at  HEW^. 

And  I  think  what  might  also  be  very  important  to  insure  that  we 
consider  both  sides  of  this  is  to  take  a  look  at  page  11  and  just  the 
last  lines  there: 

Imaginative,  creative,  dedicated,  and  competent  people  form  the  heart  and 
flesh,  the  bone,  sinew  and  muscle  of  any  organization  whether  it  be  the  corner 
grocery  store  or  a  major  department  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  We 
must  have  them  and  we  must  work  with  them  in  such  a  manner  that  they  can 
realize  their  full  potential  in  the  best  interests  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Then  we  will  just  wind  up  this  part  of  the  ques- 
tioning, you  have  on  page  1 : 

At  the  same  time,  when  we  embark  upon  a  career  in  the  service  of  our  govern- 
ment, whether  that  career  is  to  be  short  term  or  long  term,  we  must  be  quite 
willing  to  subjugate  our  own  personal  goals  to  a  deep,  personal  commitment  to 
serve  our  President,  our  Secretary,  and  our  Nation. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Would  you  reverse  that  order  now? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  you  have  got  to  feel  it  as  I  felt  it  and  accept  the 
situation  that  existed  in  HEW.  There  were  many  people  over  there 
that  I  called  snow  shovelers,  who  were  there  for  personal  aggran- 
dizement and  I  was  addressing  myself  to  them.  The  things  I  liit  hardest 


210 

were  the  last  two  sentences  that  I  read,  in  the  last  two  paragrai^hs, 
because  there  is  no  doubt  about  it — anybody  who  knew  me  there 
over  in  HEW  knew  exactly  what  kind  of  a  critter  I  was. 

Senator  Kennedy.  That  is  what  we  are  going  to  try  to  find  out. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  sure  you  are,  that  is  why  I  am  here. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Could  you  just,  before  getting  into  some  other 
questions,  could  you  tell  us  the  latest  on  Wounded  Knee? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  the  latest  word  is  that  I  ordered  another 
ex])erienced  SAC  in  there  to  assist  the  SAC  I  have  now  in  there, 
and  we  also  have  information  that  Senator  McGovern  and  Senator 
Abourezk  and  some  of  their  staff  members  are  going  out  in  U.S.  Air 
Force  aircraft.  Right  at  the  time  I  left  FBI  headquarters,  the  last 
memorandum  handed  me  was  that  the  situation  was  stable  as  of  this 
moment.  But  I  don't  know  what  it  is  right  now. 

Senator  Kennedy.  The  memorandum  ought  to  show  I  have  a  staff 
member  on  that  plane,  too. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  it  does,  I  already  mentioned  the  Senators,  but  you 
are  correct. 

Senator  Kennedy,  This  week's  Time  magazine  contains  informa- 
tion about  alleged  wiretaps  on  newsmen,  according  to  the  article^ 
requested  by  the  White  House,  authorized  by  the  Justice  Department, 
installed  b}'  the  FBI.  How  would  you  respond  to  those  charges? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  have  to  say,  first,  that  with  regard  to  the  gen- 
eral matter  of  wiretaps 

Senator  Kennedy.  No,  just  on  these  charges.  How  do  you  respond 
specifically,  I  Avill  come  on  to  general  \\dretap  questions  later  on.  How 
do  you  respond? 

Mr.  Gray.  How  do  I  respond  to  these  charges?  When  I  saw  this 
particular  article  and  checked  the  records  and  indexes  of  the  Federal 
Bureau  of  Investigation,  and  I  am  told  also  that  the  Department  of 
Justice  checked  the  records  of  the  Internal  Security  Division  of  the 
Department  of  Justice,  there  is  no  record  of  any  such  business  here  of 
bugging  news  reporters  and  White  House  people. 

vSenator  Kennedy.  Well,  is  that  the  full  answer? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  my  answer,  yes,  sir,  that  is  my  full  answer. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  talk  to  anyone  about  it  at  the  White 
House  or  is  it  just  a  matter  of  your  answer  is  ''I  just  checked  the  re- 
cord and  we  didn't  find  any  authorization  and  we  didn't  do  anything 
else." 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  my  answer,  that  we  checked  the  records  and  in- 
de.xes  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Could  you  describe  that  in  some  greater  detail. 
These  are  some  rather  serious  charges. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  know  they  are  rather  serious  charges. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Tell  us  what  you  did  exactly. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  went  to  the  records  and  checked  the  records. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  records? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  records  that  we  keep  on  national  surveillance  wire- 
taps, the  authorizations,  the  memorandums  that  are  prepared,  tlie 
reports  and  the  indexes  that  are  filed  in  connection  therewith. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  mean  just  because  it  was  not,  there  wasn't 
an  indication  or  a  mark  on  an  official  document,  you  let  it  go  at  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  what  3^ou  mean  by  a  mark. 


211 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  unless  j^ou  had  some  official  designation- 
that  this  was  going  on 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Kennedy  (continuing).  You  didn't  feel  that  you  had  t05 
pursue  it  any  further? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct  because,  you  know,  Mr.  Hoover  is  not 
going  to  do  something  like  this  in  the  first  place. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  am  not  asking  Mr.  Hoover. 

Mr.  Gray.  And  in  the  second  place 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  am  asking  about  you. 

Mr.  Gray.  In  the  second  place,  every  one  of  these  come  across: 
my  desk,  every  single  one  and,  in  the  third  place,  when  I  came  into 
the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  on  May  3,  the  very  first  thing 
that  I  said  is,  I  will  not  permit  any  wiretaps  that  are  not  in  accordance 
with  law.  That  is  my  answer,  and  that  is  what  I  have  done.  That  is 
what  I  have  said  repeatedly. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  you  have  indicated  that  you  reviewed 
what  wiretaps  were  authorized,  and  since  any  taps  on  the  White 
House  didn't  appear  on  that  list,  that  is  the  extent  of  your  investiga- 
tion? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  the  extent  of  my  investigation. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  don't  feel — let  me  ask  a  question. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  feel  that  you  ought  to  talk  to  anybody 
at  the  White  House  about  this? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  White  House  has  already  issued  a  denial,  and  the 
ans^yer  is  no,  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  didn't  talk  to  anybody  at  the  White  House? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  did  not;  I  have  not. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  didn't  feel  that  you  should,  or  had  to^ 
because  you  had  checked  this  other  file  in  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right.  I  looked  at  our  records,  the  ones  I  work 
with  every  day — these  things  come  through  all  the  time. 

vSenator  Kennedy.  Did  you  talk  with  anybody  in  the  Justice 
Department  about  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  was  advised — yes,  I  di<l — I  was  ad\'ised 

Senator  Kennedy.  Whom  did  you  talk  to? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  talked  to  Jack  Hushen,  public  information  officer. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Public  information  officer? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  because  he  called  me,  and  he  said  this  has  appeared 
in  Time  magazine — I  hadn't  even  seen  it — "What  do  you  know 
about  it?"  And  I  said,  "You  had  better  start  checking  the  records 
in  the  Department  of  Justice  and  we  will  check  the  records  in  the 
Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,  and  that  has  got  to  stop,"  and  that 
is  all. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Is  he  in  the  process  of  checking  them  now? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  reported  to  me  later  that  the  Assistant  Attorney 
General 

wSenator  Kennedy.  When  did  he  report  to  you? 

Mr.  Gray.  Let  me  say  that  the  date  of  this  was  March  5.  Yes;  it 
came  out  before  that — it  came  out  on  Monday — and  I  think  he  had 
an  advance  on  it,  and  I  think  he  called  me  on  the  weekend,  but  I  am 
not  sure  about  when  he  called  me.  Senator. 


212 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  you  didn't  call  him?  He  called  3'ou? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  because  I  had  not  seen  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  did  he  say  to  you? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  told  me  there  is  this  article  in  Time,  and  he  went 
on  to  tell  me  what  it  alleges. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  And  that  is  when  I  told  him  that  he  be  absolutely  cer- 
tain that  he  check  and  verify  the  records  of  the  Department  of 
Justice  maintained  in  the  Internal  Security  Division,  and  I  would  be — 
actually  be — certain  that  our  records  were  checked. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  you  didn't  have  any — that  is  the  only 
contact  vou  had  with  the  Justice  Department? 

Mr.  Gray.  On  this? 

Senator  Kennedy.  On  this  issue. 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes;  I  haven't  talked  to  Assistant  Attorney  General 
Olson  on  this  at  all.  I  have  not  discussed  this  with  the  Attorney 
General  at  all. 

Senator  Kennedy.  He  called  you  even  though  it  alleges  in  the 
article  that  it  was  with  Mr. — at  some  time  he  called  you  back — the 
Public  Information  Officer  called  you  back;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  because  it  was  in  conjunction  A\ith  reading  a  press 
release  that  he  was  going  to  put  out,  and  t  wanted  him  to  be  absolutely 
•certain  that  he  had  made  these  checks  with  the  Assistant  Attorney 
General  in  charge  of  the  Internal  Security  Division. 

Senator  Kennedy.  How  manv  conversations  did  you  have? 

Mr.  Gray.  Two. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Two,  and  then  he  called  a^ou  back  and  said 
there  Avere  none  on  the  list? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right,  when  he  was  discussing  the  press  release 
Tie  was  going  to  put  out. 

Senator  Kennedy.  So  do  I  gather  the  extent  of  your  investigation 
is  a  review  of  >'our  own  files,  and  a  telephone  call  to  the  public  informa- 
tion officer  of  the  Justice  Department,  and  no  one  in  the  White  House, 
about  the  allegations  and  charges  by  Time  magazine? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  because  I  had  no  formal  complaint 
there  had  been  any 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  was  listening  to  you  earlier  when  you  were 
talking  about  how  your  Inspection  Division  follows  up  every  single 
■comi)laint  that  comes  on  out  when  it  affects  the  FBI. 

Mr.  Gray.  On  one  of  us. 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  when  a  crime  like  this,  and  it  is  a  crime. 
Would  it  not  be  a  crime? 

Mr.  Gray.  If  these  acts  were  committed,  certainly  it  is  a  felony; 
no  question  about  it,  certainl^^ 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  the  extent  of  your  investigation  is,  as  I 
stated,  just  a  review  of  your  own  files,  the  files  of  the  FBI,  on  what 
A\iretaps  had  been  authorized,  and  since  you  didn't  see  any  approval 
there,  and  after  a  routine  call  from  the  public  information  officer  from 
the  Justice  Department,  you  let  that  drop;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  not  classify  it  as  just  a  routine  call.  He  was 
quite  upset  when  he  read  this  article  to  me,  and  I  am  sure  he  w^as 
speaking  for  the  Attorney  General.  I  am  sure  that  there  had  been 
discussion  between  the  Attorney  General  and  the  Assistant  Attorney 


213 

General  in  charge  of  the  Internal  Security  Division  where  those  re- 
ports are  made.  I  have  to  assume  this — this  is  a  normal  t3'pe  of  pro- 
cedure— and  I  did  what  I  would  do  under  these  circumstances — I 
checked  our  records  and  indexes. 

Senator  Kennedy.  That  is  the  sole  extent  of  what  you  did? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  Senator  Kennedy,  that  is  exactly  what 
my  testimony  is. 

Senator  Kennedy.  In  your  conversations  with  the  Public  Informa- 
tion Officer  of  the  Justice  Department,  did  he  indicate  what  the  Jus- 
tice Department  was  doing  to  try  to  find  out  whether  this  was  true 
or  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Just  told  me. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  told  me  that  the  Assistant  Attorney  General  in 
charge  of  the  Internal  Security  Division  had  checked  his  records  and 
indexes,  and  I  told  him  we  ought  to  be  absolutely  certain  about  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  didn't  think  you  ought  to  talk  to  the  As- 
sistant Attorney  General? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  didn't. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  Why  not?  The  thought  really  never  entered  my  mind  I 
would  have  to  talk  to  him.  I  have  to  check  the  FBI  records,  that  is 
what  I  have  to  check. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  you  are  satisfied  with  a  public  information 
officer's  comments  that  the  Assistant  Attorney  General  in  charge  of 
this  unit  had  nothing  on  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  This  was  my  contribution  to  the  decisionmaking  process 
before  the  Attorney  General  gave  the  authorization  to  send  out  the 
press  release.  I  told  him  to  make  absolutely  certain,  to  check  those 
Department  of  Justice  records  because  records  do  exist. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wliy  wouldn't  you  go  to  the  man  in  charge 
rather  than  the  ])ressman? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  pressman  reported  it  to  me,  and  I  went  to  my 
people. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  wouldn't  you  go  to  the  guy  in  charge  in  the- 
Justice  Department  rather  than  the  pressman? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  didn't  have  to  go  to  the  pressman;  he  came  to  me,. 
Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  3^ou  never  felt  you  had  to  follow  up? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  testified  that  I  did  not  feel  that. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Even  to  talk  to  the  Assistant  Attorney  General 
who,  if  these  things  were  going  on,  would  know  the  most  about  it,  you 
didn'  t  think  3^ou  would  have  to  get  in  touch  with  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Or  do  any  other  kind  of  investigation? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  since  I  have  been  sitting  in  that  chair,  I  have 
been  signing  all  the  paperwork  that  is  involved  in  these  national 
security  taps,  and  since  May 

Senator  Kennedy.  This  is  a  crime? 

Mr.  Gray.  Of  course,  it  is  a  crime. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  you  don't  feel  you  had  to  do  anything  more 
to  review  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir. 


214 

Senator  Kennedy.  This  is  a  serious  allegation,  it  charged  a  crime, 
and  you  didn't  feel  that  you  had  to  do  anything  more  than  receive  a 
call  from 

Mr.  Gray.  The  proper  place  to  make  this  charge,  you  know,  is  with 
the  U.S.  attorney  and  not  a  magazine  if  there  is  any  verity  to  it,  Sena- 
tor. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  I  don't  know  whether  we  would  be  as  far 
as  we  are  now  in  the  Watergate  if  we  didn't  have  the  press  write  about 
it;  wouldn't  you  agree  with  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  not 

Senator  Kennedy.  About  these  charges? 

Mr.  Gray  (continuing) .  I  am  not  saying  anything  against  the  press 
at  all. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  allegations? 

Mr.  Gray.  And  I  further  differ  with  you  about  your  statement, 
we  would  have  been  exactly  where  we  are  with  or  without  the  press 
because  from  day  1,  as  I  testified  yesterday,  I  realized  that  the  credi- 
bility of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  was  at  stake. 

The  Chairman.  Wait  a  minute,  let  him  finish  his  answer. 

Mr.  Gray.  Let  me  finish  my  answer. 

Senator  Kennedy.  That  is  a  matter  we  can  disagree  on,  too. 

Mr.  Gray.  Sure,  lots. 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  we  can't  disagree  to  the  extent  of  the 
investigation  of  a  very  serious  allegation  and  charges  about  a  serious 
crime. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct ;  I  checked  the  records  and  indexes  of  the 
FBI. 

Senator  Kennedy.   You  checked  the  records? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  said  that,  Senator,  and  that  is  my  testimony. 

Senator  Kennedy.  OK. 

Mr.  Gray.  All  right. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Let's  go  a  little  bit  into  the  question  of  the 
Segretti  situation  again. 

As  I  understand  it,  at  the  hearings  yesterda}'  there  was  discussion 
about  the  copies  of  various  FBI  materials  shown,  or  made  available, 
to  Mr.  Segretti  prior  to  his  grand  jury  appearance  in  the  Watergate 
investigation,  and,  as  I  recall  3'our  testimon}-,  I  believe  you  said  that 
no  investigation  was  conducted  of  those  allegations.  That  despite  the 
fact  that  these  materials  have  been  disseminated  to  the  Justice  Depart- 
ment personnel  and  to  assistant  U.S.  attorneys  out  in  the  field,  and, 
of  course,  I  imagine  presumably  to  your  own  agents,  your  own  Bureau, 
nothing  was  done  to  investigate  those  allegations  or  charges  other  than 
a  phone  call  to  the  White  House? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  we  don't  investigate  unless  we  have  a  violation 
of  law.  Our  ground  zero  is  found  in  our  jurisdictional  authoritj' ,  and 
there  is  no  violation  of  law,  there  is  only  a  breach  of  trust  if  this 
occurred.  I  don't  know  that  it  occurred,  and  if  it  occurred  Segretti 
was  hearing  what  he  had  said  himself. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  I  am  interested  in  what  steps  were  taken 
to  find  out  or  track  this  down  by  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  testified  as  to  the  steps. 

Senator  Kennedy.  We  are  just  going  to  take  a  little  time. 

One  telephone  call? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  one  telephone  call. 


215 

Senator  Kennedy.  One  telephone  call. 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  think  of  talking  to  Mr.  Segretti 
■about  how  he  got  the  information? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  did  not  because  there  was  no  need  to  do  that.  We 
talked  to  Mr.  Segretti  on  June  26  and  on  June  28,  and  we  also  showed 
him  on  June  30  certain  pictures  trying  to  get  him  to  identify  them,  and 
he  appeared  before  the  grand  jury  on  the  22d  day  of  August,  and  the 
information  he  gave  at  the  grand  jury  was  relayed  on  to  our  agents 
by  the  assistant  U.S.  attorne}-^  conducting  the  grand  jur3^  We  insti- 
tuted the  investigations  that  were  requested  then,  and  that  is  the 
fact  of  the  matter. 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  3^ou  never  asked  him  who  gave  him  the 
information? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  didn't,  and  no  agent  of  the  FBI  asked  him  who 
gave  it  to  him  because  there  is  no  violation  of  law.  Senator.  We  just 
•can't  go  around  doing  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  do  j'^ou  do  then? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  get  harpooned  when  we  do. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  do  you  do  when  there  is  unrestricted 
information  or  FBI  leaks  or  whatever? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  try  in  many  ways  to  ascertain  how  those  leaks 
■occur.  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  publicly.  Senator,  how  we  try  to  do 
it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  vou  didn't  in  this  case,  though,  did  you, 
Mr.  Gray? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  did  not.  I  did  not. 

Senator  Kennedy.  All  right.  How  do  you  know  that  these  leaks 
■didn't  take  place  within  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't. 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  yet  you  didn't  feel  that  you  even  ought  to 
investigate  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  No. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  did  not. 

•Senator  Kennedy.  Why  not? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  had  made  the  decision  not  to. 

Senator  Kennedy.  W^hat  was  the  basis? 

Mr.  Gray.  There  was  no  basis  for  it  because  there  was  no  violation 
•of  law. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Even  if  the  FBI  had  leaked  the  material? 
Aren't  you  interested  in  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  are  interested  in  that,  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  did  you  do  about  it  in  this  case? 

Air.  Gray.  I  did  nothing  about  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  How  do  vou  know  it  wasn't  an  FBI  agent? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  that  it  wasn't  an  FBI  agent. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  didn't  you  do  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  I  made  a  decision  not  to  do  it  because  it  was 
not  of  that  imi)ort  to  me. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  was  not,  the  leak  by  the  FBI? 

Mr.  Gray.  There  was  no  violation  of  law.  Senator,  I  have  tried  to 
rim  down  many,  many  leaks  in  the  FBI  and  I  don't  run  down  every 
one. 


216 

Senator  Kennedy.  This  isn't  a  usual  one,  is  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  This  is  not  an}^  more  uniisuaL 

Senator  Kennedy.  This  is  not  a  usual  one? 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is  not  as  bad  as  some  of  the  others. 

Senator  Kennedy.  How  do  you  draw  the  line  then?  Which  are  the 
bad  ones  you  investigate  and  which  are  the  ones  that  are  not  so  bad 
that  you  don't? 

Mr.  Gray.  Again  it  is  a  judgment. 

Senator  Kennedy.  This  one  didn't  fall  under  the  bad  ones? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not  investigate  it;  no. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Not  \\dthin  the  FBI,  you  did  not  investigate  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  didn't  investigate  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  didn't  think  you  ought  to  investigate  and 
try  to  find  out  whether  any  of  the  leaks  had  taken  place  in  the  U.S. 
attorney's  office? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  didn't  think  you  ought  to  investigate  it 
with  regard  to  the  White  House,  other  than  a  routine  call,  would  j^ou 
say? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  wouldn't  classify  it  as  a  routine  call. 

Senator  Kennedy,  How  would  you  classify  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  got  pretty  angry. 

Senator  Kennedy.  One  call? 

Mr.  Gray.  It  wasn't,  "Hello,  John,  how  is  it  today." 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  tell  us  about  it. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  testified  about  it  yesterday. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Tell  us  again, 

Mr.  Gray.  I  said,  "I  read  the  story,  is  there  anj^  substance  to  it  at 
all?"  And  he  said,  "Absolutel}^  not.  I  did  not  even  have  any  of  the 
reports  with  me  in  Miami." 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  so  what  did  you  sa}^? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  said,  "All  right,  that  is  good  enough  for  me,  John" 
and  hung  up. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  that  is  the  extent  of  it 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  the  extent.  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  probably  remember  sometime  ago  there 
was  that  Look  magazine  piece  about  Mayor  Alioto,  which  led  to  a 
libel  suit,  and  we  asked  Mr.  Rehnquist  during  the  course  of  his  testi- 
mony— I  believe  Senator  Ervin  did — about  some  of  the  procedures 
that  were  being  followed  about  the  leak  to  Look  magazine,  and  he 
said  that  the  FBI  had  reported  that,  and  here  is  what  Mr.  Rehnquist 
said  on  page  604  of  the  hearings,  part  I: 

The  FBI  reported  that,  after  the  institution  of  the  libel  suit  by  Mayor  Alioto 
against  Look  magazine,  it  received  information  that  one  of  its  San  Francisco 
agents  had  been  a  source  of  data  for  the  controversial  article.  The  agent  acknowl- 
edged that  he  had  been  in  contact  with  one  of  the  co-authors  of  the  article  and 
had  on  various  occasicnas  given  and  confirmed  information  that  ajjpeared  in  the 
article.  At  no  time  were  official  files  of  the  FBI  furnished  to  Look,  and  the  agent's 
disclosures  and  confirmations  of  information  were  not  made  with  FBI  or  other 
Department  of  Justice  authorization.  Appropriate  disciplinary  action  was  taken 
against  the  agent  in  question  and  he  retired. 

It  seems  the  FBI  was  really  willing  to  go  after  some  apparent 
leaks  of  material  in  that  particular  case  but  not  with  regard  to  the 
Segretti  case  or  the  Watergate  or  however  you  want  to  call  it. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  have  to  differ  with  you,  Senator.  The  cases 


217 

can  be  distinguished  because  there  it  was  information  that  an  agent 

of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  had  been  the  source  of  the 

leak.  We  have  no  information  regarding  am*one  being  the  source  of 

this  leak. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  you  have  to 

Air.  Gray.  All  we  have  is  a  statement  in  a  newspaper. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Just  a  statement  in  a  newspaper? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right,  sir.  If  I  had  had  information  that  any 

'One  individual  had  been  a  source  of  that  leak  I  would  have  investigated 

it. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  recess  now  until  2:15. 

(Whereupon,    at    12:30   p.m.,    the   committee   was   recessed   until 

2:15  p.m.  of  the  same  day.) 

afternoon  session 

.   The  Chairman.  Let  us  have  order. 

Proceed,  Senator  Kenned}'. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Thank  a'ou,  Air.  Chairman. 

We  were  revie^^"ing  this  morning,  Mr.  Gray,  the  followup  actions 
on  behalf  of  yourself  to  the  Time  magazine  allegations  of  wiretaps  on 
newsmen,  and  also  the  Segretti  case,  and  I  would  like  to  move  on  to 
a  couple  of  other  areas.  But,  perhaps,  before  doing  so,  I  might  just 
follow  u])  on  the  Time  magazine  allegation  first. 

I  think  earlier,  and  perhaps  it  is  just  a  clarification  for  the  record, 
I  think  earlier  this  morning  you  indicated  that  after  you  had  this  call 
from  the  Press  Officer  of  the  Justice  Dei^artment,  sometime  over 
the  weekend,  last  weekend,  you  checked  the  indexes  of  the  FBI  to 
see  if  there  was  in  fact  an}'  wu'etapping  of  the  White  House.  Is  that 
.correct? 

TESTIMONY  OF  LOUIS  PATEICK  GRAY  III— Resumed 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  I  think  your  testimoiw  this  morning  was 
to  the  effect  that  you  didn't  find  an}'  indication  on  the  index? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  correct,  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  did  you  gather,  from  any  other  sources, 
information  that  would  have  led  3'ou  to  believe  there  mav  have  been? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  have  no  basis  for  the  veracitv  of  that  story 
then? 

Mr.  Gray.  Not  in  that  particular,  no,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  what  do  you  mean  b}'  "in  that  particular"? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  the  way  it  is  written. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well 

Mr.  Gray.  We  have  our  records  of  national  securitv  surveillances, 
3^ou  know. 

Senator  Kennedy.  That  is  correct. 

;Mr.  Gray.  And  this  is  what  we  checked,  and  we  found  no  evidence 
to  thc^fiect  that  \ve  were  tapping  any  newsmen  or  any  White  House 
personpel. 


218 

Senator  Kennedy.  Or  court  ordered  surveillances? 

Mr.  Gray.  Title  III,  organized  crime? 

Senator  Kennedy.   Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  checked  only  the  national  security  record.  I  didn't 
check  the  Title  III  Organized  Crime  because  every  one  of  those  is 
issued  by  a  judge,  and  I  didn't  think  to  check  any  of  those  because  a 
judge  issues  such  an  order  under  title  III  provisions.  I  did  not  check 
title    III. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  see.  But  you  have  no  indication  then  that  either, 
or  you  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  either  from  information  that  had 
been  made  available  to  you  or  made  available  to  top  FBI  agents  that 
this- — - 

Mr.  Gray.  Had  no  reason  to  believe  it. 

Senator  Kennedy  (continuing).  That  this  had  taken  place? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir,  I  had  no  reason  to  believe  that. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  didn't  you  check  under  title  III? 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  every  title  III  surveillance  has  got  to  be  the 
result  of  an  order  issued  by  a  judge,  and  certainly  a  judge  is  not  going 
to  be  issuing  an  order  in  a  national  security  surveillance  area,  and  we 
have  got  to  demonstrate  probable  cause  and  all  the  rest  of  it.  It  is  a 
pretty  thorough  procedure  and  I  didn't  even  think  that  title  III  \\as 
involved  here.  We  can  check  the  title  III  and  certainly  will  do  that  if 
the  Senator  would  wish  us  to  do  that. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Would  you? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  have  no  objection  to  that.  Yes,  sir,  I  would  be  happr 
to. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  The  FBI  has  never  had  any  title  III  wiretaps  on  anyone  at  The 
White  House  or  any  member  of  the  press. 

Senator  Kennedy.  On  the  Segretti  case,  and  the  leakages  of  the 
FBI  file,  when  you  talked  with  Mr.  Dean,  I  think  you  indicated  the 
conversation  this  morning,  and  perhaps  could  I  bother  you  to  review 
it  again  with  us  here  as  you  remember  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  you  know  I  have  put  that  on  the  record  about 
three  times,  and  maybe  four  times.  It  is  on  the  record  and  I  will  stand 
by  it.  It  is  my  testimom-  under  oath. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  know  you  are  going  to  stand  by  it  under  oath. 

Mr.  Gray.  Sure,  and  I  did.  I  made  the  telephone  call  to  John  Dean 
and  I  hit  the  overhead  and  I  was  angr}"  and  I  asked  him  if  he  had  done 
this  thing  and  he  said,  "Absolutelv  not.  I  was  in  Miami  but  I  didn't 
even  have  the  FD-302's  with  me.'' 

Senator  Kennedy.  Sure.  Was  your  question,  to  the  best  of  your 
memory,  asking  him  whether  he  actually — ^— 

Mr.  Gray.  I  read  the  thing  out  of  a  newspaper  to  him,  Senator,  and 
I  said,  "Did  you  do  this?" 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  do  what? 

Mr.  Gray.  Do  this.  "Did  3'ou  show  this  information  to  Segretti  as 
it  is  alleged  to  have  occurred?"  and  he  said,  "Absolutely  not,  under  no 
circumstances.  I  did  not  have  the  FD-302's  with  me."  I  would  like  to 
say  for  the  record,  too,  if  I  may,  that  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investiga- 


219 

tion  interviewed  Mr.  Segretti  on  the  26th  da}'  of  June,  we  interviewed 
him 

The  Chairman.  Speak  a  little  louder. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  sorry,  sir.  We  interviewed  Mr.  Segretti  on  the 
26th  day  of  June,  1972,  on  the  28th  day  of  June,  1972,  and  also  on  the 
30th  day  of  June,  1972,  when  we  showed  him  a  picture  and  asked  him 
to  identify  that  individual.  The  onl}^  two  reports  of  interviews  that 
we  have  from  Mr.  Segretti  are  on  the  26th  and  the  28th  of  June.  We 
did  not  interview  him  two  days  })rior  to  August  19. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well  now,  he,  as  I  understand,  Mr.  Dean  indi- 
cated that  he  himself  did  not  leak  the  FBI  report? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  we  didn't  talk  in  terms  of  leak.  Senator  Kennedy. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  how  did  he — I  mean  I  am  just  trying  to 
understand  a  little  better  whether  he  said  "I  didn't  show  the  FBI 
report,"  that  still  leaves  a  pretty  wide 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  he  said,  "I  didn't  even  have  them  with  me."  He 
said  he  did  not. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Could  he  have  made  some  notes  before  or 
copies  and  brought  those  with  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  would  doubt  it  very  much.  Senator  Kennedy. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  ask  him 

Mr.  Gray.  I  didn't  ask  him. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Whether  he  had  passed  on  even  any  of  the 
information 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  did  not  ask  him. 

Senator  Kennedy  (continuing).  Anv  of  the  information  that  was  in 
if' 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  ask  him  that. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  just  asked  him  whether  he  had  shown  the 
re])ort  to  Mr.  Segretti? 

Mr.  Gray.  In  fact,  this  was  the  allegation  when  I  read  it,  and  I 
read  it  to  him  out  of  the  paper  that  morning. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  he  had  seen  Segretti? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  did  not. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  3^ou  know  whether  he  saw  Mr.  Segretti? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  do  not,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  At  one  point  while  you  were  investigating  the 
Watergate  case,  there  were  allegations  in  the  press  that  a  former  Assist- 
ant Attorney  General,  Mr.  Mardian,  after  he  left  the  Justice  Depart- 
ment and  joined  the  Committee  To  Reelect  the  President,  either 
ordered  or  was  in  some  way  involved  in  the  destruction  of  relevant 
documents  at  the  Committee  To  Reelect.  Could  you  tell  us  what 
investigation,  if  an}',  the  FBI  conducted  into  those  allegations? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  endeavored  to  interview  Mr.  Mardian,  and  we  did 
interview  him  on  July  17,  1972,  and  he  claimed  the  attorney-client 
privilege  and  said  no  more  to  us. 

Senator  Kennedy.  He  what? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  claimed  the  attorney-client  privilege  with  regard  to 
his  role  with  the  principal,  this  is  what  we  were  interviewing  him  about. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  who  was  his  client? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  will  have  to  take  a  look  at  the  specific  inter\-iew  sheet. 
I  will  get  the  interview  sheet,  the' FD-302,  and  provide  the  answer.  I 


220 

.don't  remember.  I  think  he  claimed  that  he  had  advised  Mr.  Stans  and 
Mr.  Mitchell. 

Senator  Kennedy.  So  he  didn't  respond  any  further? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  my  recollection,  Senator,  but  I  want  to  check  the 
actual  interview  sheet. 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  you  accepted  his  claim  of  lawyer-client 
relationship? 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  3'ou  know  we  have  a  point  beyond  which  we 
cannot  go. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  am  just  asking  you  did  you  accept  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  tried  to  get  whatever  information  we  could  from  him. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  he  said  that  it  was  a  lawyer-client  relation- 
ship? 

Mr.  Gray.  This  is  my  best  recollection. 

wSenator  Kennedy.  And  you  accepted  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  He  was  interviewed  on  July  17,  1972,  at  which  time  he 
stated  he  would  furnish  no  information  relative  to  this  matter.  He 
invoked  an  attornej'-client  relationship  with  respect  to  Maiuice  Stans, 
George  Gordon  Liddv,  and  Hugh  Sloan,  stating  he  had  counseled  each 
one  of  those  individuals  and  that  is  what  our  FD-302  would  show. 

Senator  Kennedy.  He  had  counseled  which  individuals? 

Mr.  Gray.  Those  three  individuals,  the  ones  I  read:  Stans,  Liddy, 
Sloan. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Is  his  position  that  he  had  counseled  them  before 
the  destruction? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  what — no,  I  am  not  going  to  get  into  the  destruc- 
tion aspect.  I  am  not  looking  at  the  302.  His  position  as  reflected  there 
was  he  had  counseled  them. 

wSenator  Kennedy.  For  any  period  of  time,  or  for  how  long  a  period? 

Mr.  Gray.  It  doesn't  say  in  that  statement. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  ask  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know.  Senator.  I  will  have  to  look  at  the  302. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  After  a  review  of  the  record,  Senator  Kennedy,  I  find  that  Mr. 
Mardian  advised  our  Agents  that  he  had,  in  the  capacity  of  ari  attorney  rather 
than  as  an  employer,  spoken  to  Mr.  Liddy,  Mr.  Stans  and  Mr.  Sloan,  and  as  such, 
he  could  not  divulge  either  the  nature  or  the  substance  of  his  conversations  with 
those  men.  It  is  my  understanding  that  the  attorney-client  privilege  which  he  was 
invoking  is  a  continuing  one  and  exists  imtil  revoked  by  the  client.  Our  Agents  did 
not  ask  Mr.  Mardian  how  long  a  period  of  time  this  privilege  would  be  claimed. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Who  else  did  3^ou  interview  about  those  alleged 
destructions  of  the  files? 

Mr.  Gray.  We  interviewed  quite  a  few  people.  Once  again,  I  will 
have  to  go  to  the  302's  to  find  which  of  them  were  asked  specific 
questions  regarding  any  destruction  of  files. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  After  checking,  I  find  that  there  are  two  situations  in  which  records 
at  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President  were  allegedly  destroyed.  The  first  of 
these  relates  to  financial  records  of  contribiitions  before  April  7,  1972,  when  the 
new  Disclosure  Act  took  effect.  The  second  involved  alleged  destruction  of  records 
at  the  Committee  offices  after  the  arrests  of  the  five  men  at  the  Democratic  Head- 
quarters on  June  17,  1972.  Our  Agents  contacted  a  number  of  people  at  the 
Committee  concerning  these  points  and  during  the  Federal  grand  jury  inquiry  a 


221 

number  of  people  were  also  questioned  concerning  the  records  destruction.  Those 
questioned  included  Jeb  Magruder,  Herbert  Porter,  Maurice  Stans,  Hugh  Sloan, 
Paul  Barrick,  Lee  Nunn,  Sally  Harmony,  Judith  Hoback,  Robert  Odle,  Robert 
Houston,  Sylvia  Panarites,  Millicent  Gleason  and  Martha  Duncan. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  talked  to  Fred- 
erick LaRue?  His  name  was  mentioned  in  this. 

Mr.  Gray.  I  believe  Mr.  LaRue  was  interviewed. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  when? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  he  was  interviev.ed  on  July  18,  1972,  and  again  in 
more  detail  on  July  21,  1972. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  ask  him  about  the  destruction  of  files? 

]NIr.  Gray.  I  am  goino;  to  have  to  answer  that  one  specifically;  I 
will  have  to  go  to  the  302  to  see  the  detailed  report  of  interview, 
Senator,  and  I  will  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course,  that  is  not  the  question.  Did  you  ask 
him?  Did  you  interview  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  cUdn't  interview  him;  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation — a  special  agent  of  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation 
interviewed  him. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  can  you  tell  us,  then — I  would  be  inter- 
ested if  you  could  tell  us  about  the  results  of  that  interview — but 
what  can  you  tell  us  about  the  interview  into  the  allegations  of  the 
destruction  of  files  by  Mr.  Mardian;  v.diat  can  you  tell  us? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  going  to  provide  it  for  the  record,  Senator,  be- 
cause there  are  so  many  persons  we  interviewed,  with  so  many  leads 
and  so  many  witnesses,  that  I  can't  possibly  make  any  pretense  that 
I  can  remember  exactly  who,  you  know.  I  could  try  to  recollect,  but 
that  is  dangerous.  I  would  much  rather  be  sure  and  be  specific  and 
be  precise. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  I  find,  Senator  Kennedy,  upon  checking  the  records,  that  Mr. 
INIardian,  who  vvas  Special  Assistant  to  the  Campaign  Manager  for  the  Committee 
to  Reelect  the  President,  was  interviewed  on  July  17,  1972,  at  the  request  of 
Assistant  U.S.  Attorney  Earl  Silbert  regarding  his  knowledge  of  the  activities  of 
Sloan  and  Liddy  while  they  worked  for  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President. 
There  was  no  allegation  that  Mr.  Mardian  had  any  information  regarding  the 
destruction  of  records.  In  addition,  Mr.  Mitchell  advised  us  on  July  5,  1972, 
that  Mr.  Mardian  was  with  him  at  a  political  meeting  in  California  from  June  16 
through  June  20,  1972.  Liddy 's  alleged  destruction  of  records  took  place  on  June 
17,  1972.  In  addition,  Mr.  LaRue  was  not  interviewed  regarding  destruction  of 
records  as  there  was  no  allegation  that  he  had  any  such  information.  Mr.  LaRue 
was  interviewed  on  two  occasions,  July  18  and  21,  1972,  as  I  mentioned  above 
but  these  interviews  dealt  with  matters  other  than  the  destruction  of  records. 

Senator  Kennedy.  That  is  the  way  it  should  be,  obviously.  Can 
you  tell  us  whether  there  actually  was,  as  a  result  of  the  investigation., 
destruction  of  those  files? 

Mr.  Gray.  Can  I  tell  you  that  there  was  destruction  of  those  files? 
We  had  allegations  to  that  effect,  and  statements  to  that  effect  made 
to  us  by  individuals  that  we  mterviewed;  yes,  sir,  I  think  I  can  say 
that;  yes,  indeed. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Would  that  be  a  crime? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  does  your  legal  counsel  say,  if  this  was 

Mr.  Gray.  I  didn't  specifically  ask  that  question  of  him,  because 
all  during  the  conduct  of  this  investigation  we  were  working  hand  in 

91-3.31—73 15 


222 

glove  \\dtli  the  assistant  U.S.  attorney.  If  at  any  time  an  assistant 
U.S.  attorney  thought  we  were  uncovering  evidence  of  a  crime,  he 
Avould  have  pointed  us  in  that  direction  rtsgardless  of  what  I  wanted  to 
do,  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wliat  did  you  want  to  do? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  said  regardless  of  what  I  wanted  to  do. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  he  ever  indicate  to  you  that  he  thought 
that  there  was  a  possible  crime? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  don't  recall  that  specifically;  and  what  I  wanted 
to  do  from  day  1,  as  we  say  in  the  FBI,  was  to  give  it  a  full  court  press 
with  no  holds  barred  and  investigate  to  the  hilt,  and  I  believe  we  did. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well  now,  but  you  had  reason  to  believe  that 
this  could  have  been  a  crime,  may  have  been  a  crime? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  don't;  no,  I  don't.  I  am  not  testifying  to  that 
effect  at  all.  Senator.  I  want  to  look  at  the  facts  and  the  circumstances, 
and  I  want  to  look  at  the  possible  statutes  that  are  applicable  before  I 
give  A^ou  an  answer  to  that  question,  sir. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsec^uently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  I  have  had  this  matter  researched,  Senator  Kennedy,  and  I  have 
been  informed  that  if  destruction  of  files  is  brought  about  by  briber}-,  misrepre- 
sentation, intimidation,  or  force  or  threats  thereof  it  could  constitute  a  violation 
of  Title  IS,  U.S.  Code,  Section  1.510  (Obstruction  of  Criminal  Investigations). 
However,  in  the  absence  of  the  elements  listed  (V:)ribery,  etc.)  the  act  of  destruc- 
tion by  an  individual  having  lawful  possession  would  not  appear  to  be  a  crime 
unless  the  files  were  specifically  protected  by  a  statute  or  the  destruction  was 
the  last  step  in  a  continuing  criminal  conspiracy  (Title  18,  U.S.  Code,  Section 
371)  to  violate  other  substantive  Federal  laws  and  to  avoid  detection. 

An  example  of  statutory  record-keeping  requirements  is  foimd  in  the  Federal 
Election  Campaign  Act  of  1971,  Title  III  of  which  requires  keeping  detailed  and 
exact  records  of  all  contributors,  the  name  and  address  of  contributors,  and  all 
expenditures  made  by  political  committees  covered  by  the  statute.  It  should  be 
noted  that  this  statute  became  effective  on  April  7,  1972. 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  at  least  you  did  haA^e  reports  from  your 
inA^estigators  that  such  destruction  had  taken  place  based  upon  their 
inA^estigation? 

Mr.  Graa".  I  read  in  some  reports,  Senator,  I  belie A^e  it  was  one 
individual  or  ma3^be  two  who  stated  to  us  that  there  had  been  a 
destruction  of  files  A\ithin  the  Committee  To  Reelect  the  President, 
yes,  sir,  but  I  can't  recall  specifically  which  person.  I  read  that  in  a 
rather  large  stream  of  302's  and  telet3^pes  that  came  across  ni}^ 
desk. 

(Mr.  Gra}^  siibsec[uentlA'  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  After  checking,  I  find  that  there  are  two  situations  in  which  records 
at  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President  were  allegedly  destroyed.  The  first  of 
these  relates  to  financial  records  of  contributions  before  April  7,  1972,  when  the 
new  Disclosure  Act  took  effect.  The  second  involved  alleged  destruction  of  records 
at  the  Committee  offices  after  the  arrests  of  the  five  men  at  the  Democratic 
Headquarters  on  June  17,  1972. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  did  they  allege  that  Mardian  had  been 
invoh^ed? 

Mr.  Graa'.  No,  sir;  I  recall  no  such  allegation  as  that.  But  I  want 
to  check  the  record  and  giA'e  a'ou  an  accurate  report  before  I  state 
under  oath  that  he  Avas  not. 


223 

Senator  Kennedy.  Or  Mr.  LaRue? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  I  don't  believe  any  mention  was  ever  made  of 
Mr.  LaRue  in  this  context,  but  I  will  check  the  302's  and  verify  it. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 

record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  As  1  indicated  previously,  there  was  no  allegation  that  Mr.  Mardian 
had  anj^  information  regarding  destruction  of  records  at  the  Committee  to  Reelect 
the  President.  With  respect  to  Mr.  LaR.ue,  we  interviewed  him  on  Jul.v  18,  and 
21,  1972,  upon  the  request  of  Mr.  Silbert,  to  determine  his  knowledge  of  the 
activities  of  Sloan  and  Liddy.  There  was  no  allegation  that  Mr.  LaRue  par- 
ticipated in  or  had  any  information  concerning  destruction  of  records  and,  in 
fact,  when  we  interviewed  Mr.  Mitchell,  he  stated  that  Mr.  LaRue  as  well  as 
several  other  officials  of  the  Committee  were  in  California  over  the  weekend  of 
June  17  when  records  at  the  Committee  were  allegedly  destroyed  by  Mr.  Liddj'. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wliere  does  that  lie  now,  that  investigation,  the 
investigation  of  destruction  of  the  records? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  Watergate  investigation  itself? 

Senator  Kennedy.  No;  just  the  destruction  of  the  records. 

Mr.  Gray.  The  destruction  is  a  part  of  the  total  investigation,  and 
I  would  have  to  ask  the  Assistant  U.S.  Attorney  and  the  Department 
of  Justice  where  we  are  on  that  right  now  because  we  have  not  been 
pushed  in  that  area. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  have  not  been  what? 

Mr.  Gray.  Pardon,  sir? 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  have  not  been  what  in  that  area? 

Mr.  Gray.  Pushed,  directed,  guided  in  that  area,  to  the  best  of  m}' 
knowledge  at  this  moment — but  I  will  ascertain  the  facts. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Could  this  not  be  considered  as  an  obstruction 
of  justice  if  the  records  were  actually  destroyed? 

Air.  Gray.  I  doubt  it  because  I  think  what  you  are  talking  about — if 
you  are  talking  about  the  same  records  that  I  have  a  recollection 
of — 3^ou  are  talking  about  those  that  were  compiled  prior  to  April  7, 
and  I  know • 

Senator  Kennedy.  How  do  you  know? 

Mr.  Gray.  Wliat? 

Senator  Kennedy.  How  do  you  know? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  are  you  assuming  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  I  assume  that  these  are  the  ones  you  are  talking 
about,  because  I  know  as  a  fact  that  after  April  7,  new  records  were 
started.  I  specificalh^  asked  that  question  myself  and  I  do  recall  that, 
and  I  can  testif}"  under  oath  to  that  effect. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Was  that  the  question  that  was  asked  Mr.  Mar- 
dian, whether  it  was  just  records  before  the  April  period? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  mj  recollection,  that  we  were  dealing  with 
records  prior,  of  contributions  and  disbursements  prior  to  April  7. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  follo^\^ng  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  Senator,  at  this  time  I  would  like  to  state  that  Mr.  Mardian  was 
not  questioned  concerning  what  records  existed  prior  to  April,  1972,  nor  was  he 
questioned  concerning  any  destruction  of  records.  The  investigation  did  not  de- 
velop any  allegation  that  Mr.  Mardian  had  been  involved  in  the  destruction  of 
records. 


224 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  I  am  not  sure  that  that  was  particularly 
the  newspaper  allegation,  was  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  know  the  newspaper  allegations. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  did  you  just  ask  them  then 

Mr.  Gray.  Why  did  I  do  what? 

Senator  Kennedy.  If  you  ^^dll  wait  for  the  question.  What  specific 
questions  did  you  ask  him  besides  which  records  had  been  destroyed 
before  April?  Did  you  ask  liim  whether  any  records  that  came  after 
April  had  been  destroyed,  or  any  other  records  that  dealt  mth  the 
alleged  Watergate  incident? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  think  my  notations  were  to  the  effect  of  what 
records  were  maintained,  what  records  are  our  interviewees  telling 
us  were  destroyed,  and  what  is  the  present  condition  of  records  at  the 
Committee  to  Re-Elect  the  President.  That  is  ni}-  best  recollection  of 
the  questions  that  I  asked  at  the  time,  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Who  destroj^ed  them,  if  they  were  destroyed? 

]Mr.  Gray.  Oh,  yes,  we  would  want  to  know  that. 

Senator  Kennedy.  One  other  area.  Mr.  Segretti.  As  I  understand, 
Mr.  Gray,  Donald  Segretti  was  interviewed  during  your  investigation; 
is  that  correct?  You  have  indicated  that,  given  us  the  dates? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  I  gave  j^ou  the  dates — the  26th  of  June,  1972, 
the  28th  of  June,  1972,  and  also  we  saw  him  on  the  30th  of  June  in 
an  effort  to  get  liim  to  identify  pictures.  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Could  you  tell  us  vvh}^  he  was  investigated? 

Mr,  Gray.  Why  he  was  investigated? 

Senator  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  He  turned  up,  his  telephone  num.ber  turned  up,  as  I 
recollect.  He  was  one  of  those  telephone  numbers  that  we  ran  down. 
This  was  my  recollection.  I  would  like  to  check  my  records  to  make 
sure  I  am  correct,  though. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

i\Ir.  Gray.  After  reviewing  the  records,  Senator,  I  find  that  my  recollection 
was  correct  and  that  we  conducted  investigation  concerning  Mr.  Segretti  because 
a  review  of  the  telephone  toll  records  of  Mr.  Hunt's  calls  had  showed  numerous 
phone  calls  between  Hunt  and  Segretti. 

Senator  Kennedy.  My  recollection 

Mr.  Gray.  It  is. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  Then  we  are  in  agreement. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Do  you  remember  what  he — there  was  some 
inter\dcw  with  him  then,  on  June  26,  and  on  the  28th;  is  that  correct? 

]Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  do  you  know  whether  he  indicated  that 
Hunt  had  asked  him — what  Mr.  Hunt  had  asked  him  to  do? 

Mr.  Gray.  No.  There  is  a  little  note  here  that  I  made,  that  he 
refused  to  give  us  any  names,  dates,  or  places  at  all.  He  was  not  too 
cooperative  and  helpful. 

Senator  Kennedy.  He  was  uncooperative? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  is  right,  in  the  sense  of  giving  us  names,  dates,  and 
places.  He  talked  to  us  once  we  contacted  him,  but  he  did  not  give 
us  names,  dates,  and  places.  But  this  later,  we  are  advised,  came  out 
at  the  Federal  Grand  Jury.  I  would  hke  not  to  get  into  that. 


225 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wliat  other  investigations  were  conducted  on 
T».'Ir.  Segretti,  other  than  the  two  inter\iews  on  the  26th  and  28th, 
do  YOU  know? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  am  not  really  sure  I  understand  that  question.  We 
were  not  investigating  him  for  anything  other  than  his  involvement, 
if  any,  in  this  I()C  situation  at  the  Democratic  national  headquarters. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Were  his  telephone  toll  cards  obtained? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  believe  that  they  were;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  were  his  toll  cards  obtained? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  we  probably  wanted  to  see  to  whom  Segretti 
could  lead  us.  We  obtained  an  awful  lot  of  toll  calls.  As  I  recall,  there 
were  2,200  of  them,  not  from  Segretti,  though,  but  from  all  the  people 
involved  in  this  investigation  as  interviewees  or  as  principals. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Who  did  they  lead  to? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  don't  recall  with  that  specificit}^.  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Would  there  be  any  names  on  there — would  you 
remember  them? 

Mr.  Gray.  No;  I  wouldn't.  I  would  have  to  provide  that  for  the 
record  for  you.  Senator.  I  just  don't  remember  that. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 

record :) 

IMr.  Gray.  Our  records  show  that  during  the  period  of  time  we  felt  was  pertinent 
and  checked,  from  about  August,  1971  to  June,  1972,  there  were  about  700  calls 
charged  to  Mr.  Segretti.  The  investigating  Agents  screened  these  calls  to  try 
to  pinpoint  those  which  M^ould  appear  to  involve  the  Watergate  subjects  (Hunt, 
Liddy,  McCord,  Barker,  Martinez,  Fiorini  and  Gonzalez).  We  also  looked  for 
calls  to  the  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President,  Committee  to  Reelect  the 
President  people,  the  White  House,  White  House  people,  or  calls  which  might 
show  Segretti  was  in  contact  with  Hunt  or  Liddy  during  their  travels.  The  greater 
majority  of  these  calls  did  not  appear  to  relate  to  the  people  involved  in  the 
Watergate  incident.  We  did  learn  that  Mr.  Segretti  was  in  touch  with  the  published 
telephone  number  of  the  White  House  on  several  occasions;  with  hotels  in  Miami, 
Washington,  D.C.,  and  Chicago;  with  Mr.  Dwight  Chapin's  residence;  and  with 
Mr.  Hunt,  both  at  his  office  and  at  his  residence. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Were  his  bank  records  obtained,  too? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  we  did  but  I  am  not  sure  on  that.  May  I  provide 
that  for  you,  too.  I  know  that  as  a  result  of — I  can  tell  you  what  we 
did  as  a  result  of  the  Federal  Grand  Jur}^,  but  I  am  getting  m3^self 
into  difficulty  here. 

(Mr.  Gray  subsequently  submitted  the  following  docimient  for 
the  record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  The  records  show  that  we  did  examine  Mr.  Segretti's  bank  accounts 
and  access  to  the  accounts  was  gained  through  issuance  of  a  Federal  grand  jury 
subpoena. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Now,  as  I  understand,  both  the  telephone  records 
and  the  bank  records  were  obtained,  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  believe  vve  did.  I  believe  we  did,  because  I  didn't  put 
any  restrictions  on  them.  The  investigators  did  what  was  normal  and 
standard,  and  I  am  sure  I  am  right  but  I  want  to  be  specific  and  precise 
on  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Now,  was  Mr.  Kalmbach  interviewed? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  he  was. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  was  he  interviewed? 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  that  goes  to  the  Federal  Grand  Jury, 


226 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  am  sorry 

Mr.  Gray.  Well,  we  had  information — you  know,  I  am  going  to 
get  nwself  into  trouble  with  Judge  Sirica  because  I  know  why  we 
went  to  Mr.  ICalmbach  and  I  know  where  the  information  came  from 
but  I  have  got  a  problem  here  with  it. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Other  than  the  Grand  Jurj^,  can  3'ou  tell  us 
what  questions  he  was  asked  b}"  the  investigators? 

Mr.  Gray.  Mr.  Kalmbach? 

Senator  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  would  have  to  go  to  the  302's  and  give  j^ou  that 
specifically,  which  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  do,  and  tell  you  exactly 
what  he  told  us  and  how  he  told  us,  just  what  the  text  is  there  in  that 
302. 

(Mr.  Gra}^  subsequently^  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  After  checking  the  records,  I  have  found  that  Mr.  Kalmbach  was 
interviewed  on  September  4,  1972,  at  Los  Angeles.  This  interview  was  conducted 
at  the  request  of  Assistant  U.S.  Attorney  Silbert,  who  directed  the  grand  jury 
inquiry.  Mr.  Silbert  wanted  us  to  find  from  Mr.  Kalmbach  details  concerning 
]:)ayments  of  money  to  Segretti  such  as  how  much  was  paid,  where  the  money  came 
from  and  whether  rejjorts  were  made  by  Segretti.  Mr.  Kalmlmch  said  that  in 
either  August  or  September,  1971,  he  was  contacted  by  Mr.  D wight  Chapin  and 
was  informed  that  Captain  Donald  Henry  Segretti  was  about  to  get  out  of  the 
military  service  and  that  he  may  be  of  service  to  the  Republican  Party.  Mr.  Chapin 
asked  Mr.  Kalmbach  to  contact  Segretti  in  this  regard  but  Mr.  Kalmbach  said  he 
was  not  exactly  sure  what  service  Chaj^in  had  in  mind  other  than  he  believed  he 
would  be  of  service  to  the  Republican  Party.  He  said  he  did  not  press  Chapin  in 
this  regard.  He  did  contact  Segretti  and  agreed  that  Segretti  would  be  i)aid 
$16,000  per  year  plus  expenses  and  he  paid  Segretti  somewhere  between  $30,000 
and  $40,000' between  September  1,  1971,  and  March  15,  1972.  Mr.  Kalmbach 
said  lie  maintained  no  records  of  expenditures  to  Segretti  and  said  he  never  received 
any  written  or  verbal  i*eports  from  Segretti.  He  said  he  was  very  rarely  contacted 
by  Segretti  and  believes  he  only  met  him  personally  on  two  occasions,  the  dates 
of  which  he  could  not  recall.  He  said  he  merely  acted  as  a  disbursing  agent  for 
Segretti's  salary  and  expenses  and  he  has  no  idea  how  Segretti  received  his  in- 
structions or  whom  he  reported  to. 

Mr.  Kalmbach  was  asked  whether  he  had  to  account  to  anyone  for  his  expendi- 
tuies  to  Segretti  and  said  he  did  not  have  to  account  to  an.yone.  He  was  asked 
how  much  was  in  the  funds  he  used  to  pay  Segretti  and  he  did  not  answer  this 
question.  He  said  on  one  occasion  he  gave  Segretti  $5,000  and  subseqiientl.y 
$20,000  to  cover  Segretti's  expenses.  He  said  he  had  no  knowledge  of  what  SegTctti 
was  doing  to  justify  these  expenses  or  to  earn  his  salary.  He  said  the  money  he 
used  to  pay  Segretti  came  out  of  campaign  funds  that  were  obtained  from  con- 
tributors prior  to  April  7,  1972.  He  said  although  he  usually  paid  Segretti  in  cash, 
an  occasional  check  may  have  been  written.  He  stated  he  did  not  have  any 
information  pertaining  to  the  burglary  of  the  Democratic  Headquarters  and  could 
fiu'nish  no  information  concerning  that  matter.  He  said  he  does  not  know  Hunt 
but  had  learned  of  his  involvement  in  this  matter  from  the  media.  He  stated  he 
was  accjuainted  with  Liddy  but  had  only  limited  contact  with  Liddy.  Such  contacts 
took  place  in  connection  with  Liddy's  work  as  legal  counsel  to  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee to  Reelect  the  President.  He  was  asked  if  he  had  anj'  knowledge  of  McCord 
and  he  stated  he  never  had  any  dealings  with  McCord  and  only  met  him  on  one 
occasion  at  the  Finance  Committee  to  Reelect  the  President  in  Washington,  D.C., 
at  wliich  time  McCord  identified  himself  to  Kalmbach  as  the  security  officer  for 
the  Committee. 

Senator  Kennedy.  And  Mr.  Chapin,  did  3^ou  interview  Mm? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  we  did.  Senator. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wh}'  did  you  interview  Mr.  Chapin? 

Mr.  Gray.  That  also  stems  from  the  Grand  Jur}^,  and  there  is  a 
possibility  here,  which  is  subject  to  my  verification,  that  tlie}^  were 
on  the  toll  call  records,  and   that  Donald  Segretti  had  telephoned 


227 

these  men.  There  is  that  possibiHty  but  I  can't  remember  ^\^th  enough 
certainty  to  state  it. 

wSenator  Kennedy.  Did  you  intervie^Y  everyone  that  Mr.  Segretti 
had  called? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation? 

Senator  Kennedy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir;  there  ^vould  have  been  a  selective  screening  at 
the  case  agent  and  field  supervisor}'  level  and  they  \vould  have  done 
that  themselves.  I  AYOuld  not  have  interfered,  though.  I  \vould  not 
have  said,  "Don't  do  this  or  don't  do  that."  I  turned  them  loose. 

Senator  Kennedy.  What  is  the  basis  of  the  screening? 

ISIr.  Gray.  It  is  basically  to  save  manpoAver  and  get  your  most 
probable  parties  first. 

Senator  Kennedy.  IIo^v  do  3'ou  decide  which  ones  vou  are  going  to 
get? 

Mr.  Gray.  The  case  agents  from  the  knowledge  of  the  case  and  the 
total  buildup  of  the  statement  pattern  as  it  is  being  developed, 
discuss  this  among  themselves  and  their  supervisors  and  they  begin 
to  zero  in.  In  these  investigations  one  thing  leads  to  another.  It  is 
that  type  of  situation. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  would  Kalmbach  and  Chapin  be  on  the 
list  of  the  interviewed  and  some  others  not  be? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  think  it  was  a  natural  and  probable  consequence  b}^ 
that  time. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why? 

Mr.  Gray.  Because  it  was  certainly  an  obvious  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  by  anybody  that  these  would  be  people  who  should  be  inter- 
viewed, because  of  some  of  the  allegations  that  were  made  once 
again  in  the  Federal  Grand  Jury. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  Chapin's  boss? 

Mr.  Gray.  Who  is  that,  sir? 

Senator  Kennedy.  Mr.  Haldeman. 

Mr.  Gray.  Mr.  Haldeman,  no,  sir,  we  did  not. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  anybody  that  you  know  of  in  the  FBI  talk 
to  him? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  sir,  I  know  of  no  one  from  the  FBI  who  talked  to 
Mr.  Haldeman.  I  know  of  no  one  in  the  FBI  who  sent  out  a  lead  to 
talk  to  Mr.  Haldeman  and  I  know  of  no  one  in  the  FBI  who  recom- 
mended that  we  talk  to  Mr.  Haldeman,  and  when  I  asked  these  very 
same  questions  in  our  skull  sessions 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  asked  the  same  questions? 

Mr.  Gray  (continuing).  I  asked  those  very  same  questions  in  our 
skull  sessions. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Why  did  you  ask  them? 

Mr.  Gray.  Why  did  I  ask  them?  Because  once  again  I  wanted  to 
leave  no  stone  unturned. 

Senator  Kennedy.  You  think  if  they  asked  Mr.  Chapin's  boss  that 
some  stone  might  have  been  turned? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  doubt  it  very  much  because  we  have  no  indication 
in  the  total  statement  pattern,  the  total  evidentiary  pattern  of  devel- 
opment of  this  investigation  to  indicate  that  he  was  involved.  We  did 
interview  Air.  Ehrlichman,  so  the  natural  conclusion  has  got  to  be 
drawn,  Senator,  that  if  we  had  thought,  if  any  of  my  investigators 


228 

had  thought  that  Mr.  Haldeman  should  hare  been  interviewed  such 
a  recommendation  would  have  been  made,  such  a  lead  would  have  been 
carried  through. 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  the  thought  came  through  your  mind 
though,  did  it  not,  about  interviewing  Mr.  Chapin's  boss  about  what 
acti\^ties  Mr.  Chapin 

Mr.  Gray.  This  is  when  we  were  preparing  for  this  confirmation. 

Senator  Kennedy  (continuing).  It  is  not  an  unusual  thought  to 
have,  is  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  it  isn't  an  unusual  thing  under  the  circumstances. 
I  asked  it  and  I  checked  it  out  when  we  were  going  through  our  skull 
sessions  in  preparing  for  these  confirmation  hearings. 

Senator  Kennedy.  It  might  have  been? 

Mr.  Gray.  I  did  not  ask  it  during  the  conduct  of  the  investigation, 
however. 

Senator  Kennedy.  But  you  did  ask  it  during  the  skull  sessions? 

Mr.  Gray.  Sure  because  I  knew  this  would  be  a  question  that 
would  be  asked  me  and  one  I  would  have  to  answer. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wliat  would  have  been  the  type  of  thing  you 
might  have  been  looldng  for  with  Mr.  Haldeman,  what  Mr.  Chapin's 
duties  were? 

Mr.  Gray.  No. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Wliat  sort  of  thing? 

Mr.  Gray.  Any  participation,  guidance,  dhection,  involvement  in 
the  IOC.  That  was  the  criminal  matter  that  we  had  under  investiga- 
tion. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Limited  only  to  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  Sir? 

Senator  Kennedy.  Limited  onty  to  that? 

Mr.  Gray.   Yes,  sh.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Did  Haldeman  have  access  to  the  FBI  reports? 

Air.  Gray.  I  cannot  answer  that  question  because  I  do  not  know 
the  answer. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Well,  to  your  own  knov,dedge,  you  don't  know 
whether  he  had,  he  ever  had  access  to  it? 

Mr.  Gray.  No,  I  have  to  testify  that  I  do  not  know. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Could  you  find  that  out,  would  there  be  a  way 
of  your  finding  that  out? 

Mr.  Gray.  Oh,  yes,  I  think  there  probabl}^  would  be  a  way  of 
fuiding  that  out.  I  would  ask  him. 

Senator  Kennedy.  Would  you  do  that? 

Mr.  Gray.  Yes,  sir,  I  would. 

(Mr.  Gra}^  subsequently  submitted  the  following  document  for  the 
record :) 

Mr.  Gray.  I  contacted  Mr.  Haldeman  on  Friday,  March  2,  1973,  and  IMr. 
Haldeman  stated  he  did  not  have  access  to  the  FBI  reports  in  this  matter. 

Senator  Kennedy.  I  have  some  other  areas;  what  waj  would  vou 
like  to  proceed.  Air.  Chairman? 

I  have  some  other  areas.  Do  you  want  me  to  proceed  now?  I  would 
like  to,  if  I  could.  Unless  other  members  of  the  committee  are  inter- 
ested in  askhig  some  questions  now,  what  I  would  like  to  do  is  to  talk 
a  httle  bit  about  procedures  within  the  FBI.  Air.  Gray  has  indicated 


229 

an  interest  in  opening  up  and  talking  a  bit  about  that.  I  have  some 
questions  in  those  areas  that  I  will  be  glad  to  start  in  on. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Mathias  wanted  to  ask  some  questions. 

Senator  Kennedy.  All  right. 

The  Chairman.  About  how  long  have  you  got? 

Senator  Matkias.  Air.  Chairman,  I  wouldn't  take  more  than  10 
minutes,  15  at  the  outside. 

The  Chair?,ian.  After  you  conclude  suppose  we  go  over  to  Tuesday 
morning. 

Senator  Kennedy.  After  Senator  Mathias? 

Senator  Tunney.  What  time  in  the  morning? 

The  Chairiman.   10:30  Tuesday  morning. 

Senator  Bayh.  Mr.  Chau-man,  I  am  not  going  to  be  here  Tuesday 
morning  and  I  have  a  few  questions  I  wou